1951-11-16

Hon. Edouard Rinfrei (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I hold in my hand a copy of New Liberty of October, 1951, to which the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) directed the attention of the house yesterday. I must apologize to the inhabitants of Prince Edward Island for the fact that the advertisement shows only that part of Prince Edward Island that is represented by the hon. member for Queens. I must, however, assure him that the maps in all the other advertisements that were published in the newspapers show the whole of Prince Edward Island. I am sending him over an advertisement that appeared in the Vancouver Sun of August 29, 1951, and the French copy of the print that I hold in my hand.


Mr. Gibson:: Does it show the post office?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The best part of Prince Edward Island is also shown on it.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and amendments thereto.-Mr. Fulford.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement with regard to increase in pensions under the Pension Act.
A little less than a month ago I announced the intention of the government to introduce, at this session, legislation dealing with an increase in pension for disability or death under the Pension Act. After reviewing the situation and considering recent representations received from the Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans Associations in Canada, the government has decided to increase basic rates of pensions as follows:
Hon. members know that a pensioner who is totally disabled, as the result of his war service, receives a 100 per cent pension, which at the present time is $94 monthly. This will be increased to $125, which represents a 334 per cent increase.
If married, he now receives $31 monthly additional pension for his wife, and this will be increased to $45, which is an increase of 45 per cent. The intention of the government is to make generous provision for the establishment of the family unit, and thus the present pension of $125 monthly for man and wife will be increased to $170. Additional pension for the first child will be increased from $19 to $20 monthly and the rates for other children remain unchanged.
The pensioned widow, who now receives $75 monthly, will have her award increased to $100, which is also 33 J per cent. Hon. members will recall that by the amendments of June 1951 the pension for the children of such widows was increased to orphan rates and will now be $40 monthly for the first child instead of $38 and remain at $30 and $24 for the second and subsequent children respectively.
Hon. members will probably wish to know whether the unemployability supplement is to be continued or not. As I explained last session, the entire question of compensation for disability or death was being closely studied, and it was not considered feasible at the time to come to a final decision, but it was decided to introduce a measure to give immediate relief to pensioners who were unable to work, and whose disability pensions were the sole or principal sources of income. It has served a most useful purpose and afforded very valuable information regarding the needs of the group who were most seriously disabled in the service of our country.
When the new scale of pensions goes into effect, payments of unemployability supplement will cease. Under the present rates, a 100 per cent pensioner, married, gets $125, and if unemployable gets $40 additional, or a total of $165. Under the proposed rates he will receive $170. A 100 per cent pensioner, single, now receives $94, plus $20 unemployability supplement if he is unemployable, a total of $114, and under the proposed scale will receive $125.

Increase in Veterans Pensions
Up to date, records show that 6,246 pensioners have received the supplement at married rates and 2,991 at single rates, a total number of 9,237 pensioners in all, which is about 27 per cent of the total number of pensioners receiving rates which make them eligible for the supplement. This unemployability supplement has been of great assistance to the group of pensioners who were hardest hit by the rising cost of living, and the measure, it is felt, has fulfilled the purpose for which it was intended. With the general increase in pension rates, it is deemed no longer necessary to pay the supplement.
The increase in the basic rates will be effective on January 1, 1952, on which date the unemployability supplement will cease.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question? Will he parallel this most welcome announcement that he has made with a similar announcement at an early date with regard to the war veterans allowance?


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the veterans of the lakehead-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: We wish to thank the minister and the government for their fair treatment of the veterans, and wish them long life.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question with regard to the statement? Will there be any change in the ceiling of the income allowed to the recipients of war veterans allowance, many of whom draw small pensions?


Hugues Lapointe: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend's question does not pertain to this act at all. What I just announced are increases under the Pension Act, and what he has referred to is part of the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Mr. Cruickshank:: May I ask a supplementary question? Does this meet the requirements as asked for by the Canadian Legion?


Hugues Lapointe: I believe it does meet the demand of the Legion and of the national council; in fact, I believe that in some points it is more generous than what they asked for.


Mr. Brooks:: I did not know that I merited so much applause on rising to my feet. In carrying along the same idea of the question which has just been asked I should like to say that as a veteran I appreciate very much the statement made by the minister. I also want to say that it is just one year too late. It should have been done one year ago. I do

not think that the government, or the minister, deserves an awful lot of credit for waiting all this time.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Graydon:: May I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? Will he give an answer to the question which was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as to why the government has not seen fit to bring in something for war veterans allowance recipients as well as the pensioners.


Mr. Chevrier:: He answered that.


Hugues Lapointe: I have already answered that question, which was put to me by the hon. member the other day.


Gordon Graydon: The minister did not answer it at all.


Hugues Lapointe: I did.. The question has been answered before.


Gordon Graydon: It should have been brought in at the same time as this.


Lionel Chevrier: I guess you do not like this.


Gordon Graydon: The Legion asked for both.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



WHALING


[Stage Direction]
2,	1946
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Fisheries) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 20 (from the Senate), to implement the international convention for the regulation of whaling.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: I desire to direct a question to the government through the Minister of Agriculture. I was not able to give adequate notice beforehand, and therefore I would ask that this question be answered on Monday, if possible. Will the department consider the advisability of making provision, through the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, to grant assistance to farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan at present in distress through the very abnormally wet season of 1951?



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D, Fulton (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs relative to the statement he has just made. My question is whether the proposed change in legislation connected with the Pension Act will allow pensioners, who are not able to have children of their own, but who have adopted children, to receive additional payments.
Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fullon:: There are a number of such cases, and it is no laughing matter for them. I am asking if it will now be provided that payments for dependents will be made to those who have legally adopted children.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Have them see Dr.
Bertrand.


Mr. Lapoinle:: I am afraid I cannot answer that question at the moment. However I would be very glad to take it into consideration. If the hon. member has any particular case in mind, and wishes to bring it to my attention, I shall look into it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have written to the minister about a particular case two or three times already. I am sorry the minister does not read his correspondence. I will write to him again, but it would be better if he would do something about it.



COARSE GRAINS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the plebiscite at present before the people of Manitoba in connection with compulsory grain marketing, and would ask him whether, regardless of whether or not the vote is in the negative, coarse grain marketing in Saskatchewan and Alberta will still be continued.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The plebiscite in Manitoba is a matter that does not have anything to do with this government. When we see the result of the plebiscite, a decision will be made.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister
whether Premier Campbell of Manitoba had any authority to say that the dominion government would withdraw all supplementary legislation in all three provinces if there was a negative vote in Manitoba?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon. member is reading from the article I read, that is not what Premier Campbell said.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not an answer and is different from the minister's statement of two years ago.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice in connection with the work of the commission that has been sitting to consider criminal law amendments. Has the commission made any final or interim report and, if so, will the matter of the amendments come before the present session?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: In reply to the hon. member may 1 say that no report has been received. I think that answers the remainder of the question.



REPLY TO INQUIRY AS TO PROHIBITION OF EXPORT OF CANADIAN FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked the following question:
Owing to the reports that communists are continuing to blackmail Canadians of Chinese descent who have relatives or friends in China, in order to protect these Canadians has the government given consideration to prohibiting the export of Canadian dollars and other funds to communist China and to countries behind the iron curtain?
The hon. member asked the same question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) last January, at which time the minister replied:
The matter has not been given consideration up to the present time.
Since that time the Minister of Finance and the department have given the matter consideration, and I have to report that the department has no knowledge of such allegations. namely that blackmail or extortion is
1090	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry being practised. We have no communications from Chinese Canadians in this country or Chinese in China. Through our records we see no increase in remittances. Of course remittances of less than $100 to various countries are not checked as closely as those over $100, for which authority has to be received.
The present rate is about three or four remittances a month of more than $100 to China, and this is as it has been for many years. However, the fact that we may not have official knowledge of the situation may *not prove that it does not exist. If we prohibited the export of remittances to China we would harm a great many other Chinese.
As all hon. members from British Columbia are well aware, there are perhaps no people in the world more devoted than the Chinese to their parents and ancestors. Even the poorest Chinese working in a garden or a cannery in British Columbia sends a small remittance back to his family in China. The blocking of remittances at this time would certainly inflict great hardships on those families.
The other point is that to make it effective there would have to be postal censorship, because in addition to remittances there is of course the opportunity of putting American or Canadian dollar bills in letters. Such censorship could be effective only if the American authorities agreed to it because, otherwise, a sure way to circumvent Canadian censorship would be to send money to the United States, and then to China. I can assure the hon. member that the department is giving continual study to the problem.



INDIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, notice of which I have not been able to send. Perhaps he would answer on Monday.
Will the minister tell the house whether or not there is foundation in fact for the rumors that, under the Indian Act, expulsion proceedings are being taken against certain members of the Samsons band at Hobbema, Alberta, on the ground that their ancestors are alleged to have taken scrip. Will the minister make a statement on the situation existing in this connection, and will he give consideration to the suggestion that proceedings in this matter be suspended?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Chairman, I might as well dispose of the question now, rather than wait until Monday. Under the Indian Act, which came into force on September 4, there is procedure whereby interested persons may register complaints against other persons on a band list.
I understand that in the particular reserve mentioned by the hon. member there are resident a few members, perhaps as high as 100, whose ancestors did at one time in the past take scrip. That has been the subject of some controversy between the Indians who are members of the band, and those in that group. There have been in the past several steps taken by Indians on the band list to have those in the group he has mentioned put off the reserve. I understand the latest effort in that respect is to find out what procedure they might take by way of complaint against these persons on the band list. No formal complaint has been received, but I understand that one is in process of being filed with the department.
The procedure to be followed on this will foe that the registrar under the Indian Act will make a decision based on all the facts on our files and otherwise available, as to whether or not these people are on the band list properly. That decision can be appealed by the injured persons, if indeed they are injured, to a judge of a district court in the immediate neighbourhood of the reserve. Until all that is done no action will be taken to remove them from the reserve.



CANADIAN FORCES ACT TO PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION, PENSIONS, ETC. TO MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES AND ALLIED SERVICES

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 21, respecting the Canadian forces.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, when the resolution preceding this bill was under discussion in committee yesterday, I made the suggestion that the Department of National Defence should undertake an investigation into the adequacy or otherwise of the welfare and educational services being furnished to the troops, particularly those in Korea. I would like also to have this request extend to the troops now serving in Europe.

When the Minister of National Defence made his reply he did not deal with that particular suggestion. He covered many other matters which had been brought up by the various hon. members who had taken part in the discussion, but he did not say whether the department would be willing to have an investigation made by an independent body. I believe that the situation is sufficiently important to warrant such an investigation. Yesterday we had a report of an interview given by the Primate of the Anglican Church upon his return from Korea, and in today's press we find a report from Montreal to the effect that yesterday the Canadian Council of Churches was considering the same question. Apparently the representatives present at that council meeting were much concerned about this situation.
There can be no doubt that conditions in Korea are very grim indeed and it looks as though they would become even more so in the months that lie ahead. Our troops in Europe will also need services of this kind. I ask the parliamentary assistant whether the government is willing to send out an investigating committee composed of people who had experience in providing welfare services during the last war but who are not in the Department of National Defence. There are officials in other departments who had extensive experience in such work during the last war, and then in addition there are the men in the voluntary agencies I have referred to, particularly the Canadian Legion, the Y.M.C.A., the Knights of Columbus and the Salvation Army, who also had extensive experience in the last war in this type of service and who made a splendid contribution.
I ask whether it is not possible to have this whole situation checked up at once by an independent committee constituted as I have suggested. I see no reason why that committee could not be made up of a combination of men from other government departments and representatives from the national organizations I have mentioned. I would like the parliamentary assistant to indicate the attitude of the government toward that suggestion.


Mr. Campney:: Of course I cannot express the views of the government in connection with the representations which have been made, but I would call the hon. member's attention to the statement made yesterday by the Minister of National Defence during the debate on the resolution. The minister dealt with various aspects of welfare activities and also with a good many of the observations that were made by my hon. friend. At the conclusion of his remarks, as reported
Canadian Forces Act
on page 1056 of Hansard, the minister outlined the reason why the government had maintained the position it had taken up to the present time, and in that connection he said:
I have mentioned the situation as we understand it. I go much further than that and say that if something needs to be done at any stage, then we shall see that it is done and done in the most effective way possible. So far I am informed by the officers who have been there that they do not believe more could be done under the circumstances.
I can only add that the representations made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will be brought to the attention of the minister for further consideration.


Howard Charles Green: Yesterday, as reported on page 1043 of Hansard, the minister was asked a question about the type of services given by the Salvation Army to the British troops in Korea. That question arose out of an article in the Globe and Mail which contained a picture of a Salvation Army officer providing tea or refreshments of a similar nature to the troops. Previously the statement had been made that there were no Salvation Army officers or officers of any similar voluntary organization in Korea with the commonwealth forces. When faced with the article in the Globe and Mail yesterday the minister said that he would have an investigation made, and 1 should like to know if that has been done.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In referring to this matter
yesterday the minister undertook to see that the statement would be checked up. He said that he would ask officials of his department to communicate with the British authorities. I understand that that is being done, but that no report has been received as yet.


John George Diefenbaker: About two weeks ago,
as reported on page 477 of Hansard, the minister replied to certain questions asked by the hon. member for Brandon, and also pointed out that I had asked certain questions of which notice had just been given. Later on in the same day, on orders of the day, as reported on page 481 of Hansard, I asked certain questions the answers to which have not yet been properly clarified. Those questions had to do with the Y.M.C.A. in particular, but reference was made also to the Salvation Army.
I have had several letters from men serving in Korea asking why it is the Department of National Defence is denying the men serving there the services of the Y.M.C.A. and the Salvation Army. All of us who have been in the armed forces know the work that these organizations did in the first great war and in the second great war. On October 29 I asked the minister whether it was so, that the national council of the

Canadian Forces Act
Y.M.C.A. had offered last November to send the necessary auxiliary services to Korea.
The reply given by the minister was that he did not recall that the Y.M.C.A. had done so. I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant whether it is not a fact that the Y.M.C.A. did undertake the responsibility of providing those services and, if so, why the department should deny in such an abrupt and definite manner this great organization the opportunity of providing these services without cost to the government of this country.
The answer given by the minister was to the effect that geographic and other conditions are such that under existing circumstances it is out of the question. He went on to say that consequently they had not seen fit to accept these very generous offers up to the present time. With respect to the Salvation Army, it needs no proponents in this house or in the country in support of the magnificent work that it does. With these two great national and international organizations designed to afford spiritual and material benefits to the troops, what justification is there for the department to take what appears on the face of it to be an arbitrary stand and refuse services voluntarily offered without cost to the Canadian people?
That is the attitude taken by four soldiers in Korea who wrote to me at different times, and not one of them had any connection with any of the others. All of them served in the last great war. All of them know of the work that was done by the Salvation Army and the Y.M.C.A., and it is very difficult for them, as it is for me, to understand why, whatever may be the difficulties of the terrain, the changing front or of establishing permanent bases from which these organizations can operate their facilities, if they are prepared to take the chance in an endeavour to bring aid and assistance, spiritual and otherwise, to the Canadian forces, they should be denied the opportunity to do so. I think it would be well if the parliamentary assistant would advance far more satisfactory and cogent arguments than the minister has done. His attitude simply was: Well, other countries are not doing it.
We are not concerned with what other countries are doing. Those of us who served in either of the first and second world wars know what the Y.M.C.A. and the Salvation Army did. We know they have the facilities for this type of organization. They have the experience and the personnel. They know whether they can carry it out. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to give the house and the country the real reasons why free and voluntary offers of service are being turned down. Surely there must be some

reason other than what appears in the answer given by the minister yesterday and the less extensive answer given on the 29th of October to justify a course which on the face of it seems inexcusable and indefensible.


Gordon Graydon: May I enter this discussion for the first time? I did not say anything on the resolution, but I was hopeful that when the minister had made his reply to the various suggestions and criticisms that had been made respecting auxiliary services members of the house would be left with a clear-cut answer as to what the government's policy really was in this regard. After having listened intently to the government's replies to the various members who have spoken, I must confess that the matter still remains in a state of grave uncertainty so far as this very important issue is concerned.
I am afraid that, if the government does not make a frank clarification of the reasons why they have taken this position, the public as well as members of the house may come to the conclusion that there is more back of the government's plan than has been disclosed. In other words, there will be a section of the public who will believe that the government intends to follow this kind of policy in the years to come, and to wash out the very laudable efforts of the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army, the Knights of Columbus, the Legion and others who have participated in such a major way in these services before.
I think the government should make it clear now before we go any further that that is not going to be the policy they are going to follow, because in addition to the Korean war we are going to have an increasing number of men leaving our shores for the western European area. As the parliamentary assistant knows full well from his distinguished experience in the past, in a condition where there is a twilight between peace and war and where you have armed forces serving, the need for the services of the organizations to which I have referred becomes as important as it is in actual war operations.
I think we should not allow the bill to go through until such time as the parliamentary assistant has made it abundantly clear that the government is going to utilize the services of these auxiliary organizations. That should be done in order to remove any doubt in the minds of the people as to whether the government is embarking in secret upon a policy which will wash out all such efforts in the days that lie ahead. That is the thing that bothers me most. I think there is much more than the question of co-ordination of services so far as these various auxiliary bodies are concerned. After all, there is the question of morale both at home and where the forces

are serving. I think the Canadian people will not take kindly to any policy that the government may have in mind whereby the great services rendered by these organizations in the past are now going to be forgotten and a new policy evolved in which they will play no part in the days that lie ahead. That is putting it very simply and plainly. I think the parliamentary assistant owes it to parliament and to the country to make abundantly clear what the government has in mind for the future.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: While the Salvation Army, the Knights of Columbus and the Y.M.C.A. perform fine services, members of parliament are responsible for sending these boys to Korea. We voted to send them there and voted to participate not in a twilight war but in what seems to be a very serious encounter in a most unattractive part of the world. I say that every member of the house should make it his responsibility to adopt three or four of these boys over there on the Korean front and see that they receive letters and little gifts of tobacco, candy or whatever luxury may be in order. We should make it our own responsibility to see that their morale is maintained. They are doing a dirty job for us. It is our personal responsibility and we should not try to shift it to the Salvation Army or any other welfare organization.


Mr. Coldwell:: The government should give particular attention to the provision of all auxiliary services that can be secured. When we realize that such services were welcomed in Europe in both wars we have even more reason to suggest them now in a country where the weather is difficult and the terrain equally so. If auxiliary services were needed in the European theatre in the last war they are needed even more in the Korean campaign. I think every opportunity should be given to those who organize auxiliary services to perform the same kind of service that they did in the last war.
I want to say, too, that I believe provisions should be made for the welfare of all types of boys who are over there. I know that, for example, beer has been sent to Korea for those who like a glass of beer. I am not one of those who would deny a man who likes it a glass of beer. I want to say that any other of the men who want to have a social conversation should be able to get, we will say, Coca-Cola, 7-up, or ginger ale or one of the soft drinks at a dry canteen. They could sit there without feeling obligated to partake of a beverage to which they are not accustomed. So I am making a plea, then, to the government to give all the facilities they can to the boys who are engaged in Korea, in training in Canada or on duty in Europe. They should
Canadian Forces Act
be provided with the opportunity of having a pleasant evening conversing with companions in canteens where only soft drinks are served.
I am happy to have noted, too, that the government has set up some educational facilities for the men over there, under a gentleman who during the last war had charge of that field for the air force. I understand that the men are being kept informed as to the progress of international and domestic affairs, and are given some opportunity of understanding the cause for which they are fighting. May I also suggest that these facilities should be extended, and that a well-rounded educational opportunity be given to these boys. While I am not what some might call a temperance crank, nonetheless it has been shown, by some unfortunate incidents recounted in the news reports, that there has been some overindulgence and regrettable incidents on the part of a comparatively few members of the armed forces overseas. In view of the modern trend of thought and education, some effort should be made to inform the men, whether they be in Korea or elsewhere, as to the dangers of overindulgence in alcoholic liquors. We know more about that field today than we have ever known. A good many scientific investigations have been made by universities like Harvard, Yale and so on, as to the manner in which this problem should be treated. It seems to me that the government, the department and the house could do a very fine job for the welfare of the young men at the moment, and for the future of these young men, by undertaking a well thought out educational program stressing the dangers that are inherent in the use of alcohol. Stress could be laid on what it does to the system, and so on.
I am asking, first, that every facility be given to young men who may not desire to drink intoxicating liquor with their companions-there are many who do not-and that they be given the opportunity of relaxation in dry canteens. Then, the educational services should be given the obligation of conducting an educational program dealing with physical health, mental health and so on, and the dangers of a too free use of alcoholic beverages. I think that temperance teaching is needed everywhere; in the schools, colleges, the forces and wherever we have groups of men and women congregated. I am making that suggestion and I hope the government will carry it into effect.


Mr. Churchill:: I believe we have reached a stage, Mr. Chairman, where the people require some statement of general policy from the government concerning this particular matter. Sufficient information has

Canadian Forces Act
come from Korea now, from the men who are serving there and from the members of the religious organizations who have visited Korea, as well as statements emanating from various auxiliary services, to show that there is a need of welfare services of the kind to which Canadian troops were accustomed in the first and second great wars. Up to the present moment we have had no satisfactory answer from government sources.
The parliamentary assistant has read to us a statement made by the minister yesterday and recorded on page 1056 of Hansard. It concludes with this sentence:
So far I am informed by the officers who have been there that they do not believe more can be done under the circumstances.
I feel that is far from clear-"under the circumstances". Perhaps nothing more can be done for the troops under the particular arrangements that have been made. I would say that, with the assistance of the auxiliary services, much more can be done. We do not need to take the time to argue the value of the auxiliary services. They proved their value in the first and second wars. I feel now that there is some policy emerging that is directed towards dispensing with the auxiliary services plan in connection with the Canadian army. I believe that is quite unsound.
So far as I can see from my own experience, and as every veteran of the first war knows, the auxiliary services were of immense importance to the men serving in France and Flanders. It is not a question of the terrain or the difficulty of serving conditions. Many veterans will recall that on the road to Passchendaele ridge there was an auxiliary service chap with his assistant, sheltered in a miserable dugout, serving coffee to the weary soldiers returning from the front. Nothing in Korea or anywhere else could equal the conditions that existed at that time. In the second world war the auxiliary services proved this tenfold. They were the most effective means of maintaining morale that I saw overseas. As I mentioned yesterday, I do not believe the job can be done through the regular army arrangement. I have been a welfare officer in a regiment, and I have commanded a regiment without auxiliary services. The moment I obtained an auxiliary services person with his supplies the whole picture changed.
Without an auxiliary services person you are obliged to appoint an officer in charge of welfare, and assign to him an N.C.O. or perhaps one or two other ranks. In the course of time that officer, who is trained for a military type of duty rather than welfare duty,

is required for other duties. After all his training for military matters, he should not be posted to welfare work which can be done by a person not trained in military matters. I believe it is a waste of trained officers to assign them to welfare duty. That is exactly where the auxiliary services fill the need. They provide people who do not require military training. Yet they provide people who are thoroughly experienced in man management or in personnel work. I have not seen a finer type of personnel work done than that which was done by the auxiliary services people during the second world war. It does not matter which group it was, whether it was the Legion, the Knights of Columbus, the Salvation Army or the Y.M.C.A., a highly trained, first-class type of man was provided for service in the field.
Their work was of great importance. No one who has served in the field can overestimate the importance of morale in a regiment. It may seem strange to people who have not had that experience, but it does not take a great deal of assistance from an auxiliary service to build up morale within a regiment. It may be simple things that are provided, but they are certainly appreciated by troops who suffer greatly from boredom, exposure, loneliness and things of that nature. The auxiliary services clearly fill that gap.
Have we reached the stage in policy making with regard to the Canadian army where we are not to provide auxiliary services through these well-tried sources? Have we reached the stage where it is all to be done under army personnel? If so, are we training any army personnel for welfare work? I think we are not, and I think we would be wrong to do it, because army training should be directed towards preparing men to fight and to supply the people who are fighting in the field. Yet we have available volunteers from the auxiliary services, and we should use them.
I again press the point that we should have from the government some explanation as to what the policy is in connection with the auxiliary services for our armed forces. I maintain-and I am sure that every veteran knows this-that they are absolutely essential. We do not need to carry it to extremes. It is not a question of mollycoddling the troops. I am opposed to that sort of thing. Soldiering has to be a rough life, and soldiers have to live* a hard life. But there are a few things that can be done without too much expense, and without cluttering up your army with a lot of equipment, to ease the problem of the people who are serving in the field. Anything that I say should not be interpreted

as suggesting that this should be an expensive and luxurious type of treatment for servicemen. I approve a hard life for servicemen; it makes them good fighters. At the same time, these auxiliary services have been proved, by the experience of two world wars, to be absolutely essential and they should be part of the policy of our forces at the present time.


The Chairman:: Shall the section carry?


Howard Charles Green: No. We want an answer.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the minister dealt at length with this question of auxiliary services not only yesterday and on the occasion to which the hon. member for Lake Centre referred, but also on another occasion; I have just lost the page for the moment. He answered orally a question asked by the hon. member for Brandon a few days ago and dealt at quite some length with this particular point.


Howard Charles Green: At what page?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I had it here a few moments ago; at page 477 of Hansard of October 29.


Howard Charles Green: That is the statement to which the hon. member for Lake Centre referred.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was in answer to the hon. member for Brandon.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have nothing to add to what the minister said on those occasions. I think he stated the views of the government and the reasons for those views. I therefore do not propose to add anything to what he said. But before I sit down I should like to say this, in response to the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra as to the Salvation Army operating an auxiliary service in Korea in connection with the British army. Yesterday the minister said that he would make inquiry in London. That inquiry was made and the department has just received a reply from the British authorities in London who advise us that there are no Salvation Army welfare services operating in Korea under United Kingdom auspices.


Howard Charles Green: I wonder how this Salvation Army jeep got into Korea if there are no Salvation Army officers there? Here is a picture in an advertisement published in Great Britain by the Salvation Army; and I am quite sure they are not misrepresenting the facts. There must be some explanation other than that which the parliamentary assistant has just given us.
Canadian Forces Act


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the one is a newspaper report and photograph and the other is a report from the British authorities in London. I cannot say more than that.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the policy of the Department of National Defence that these voluntary welfare organizations shall not be permitted to take part in any operation in which the Canadian army is concerned? Has there been a change in policy since the second world war? We hear rumours that the Department of National Defence has decided that it will no longer allow any of these national organizations to take part in the providing of welfare services. That rumour was before the Canadian Council of Churches yesterday in Montreal. In the first paragraph of the press report we find this:
The Canadian Council of Churches yesterday decided to investigate reports, expressed before it, that the Salvation Army, Y.M.C.A., Knights of Columbus and similar agencies will be excluded from forthcoming over-all welfare service for the Canadian armed forces.
We have heard similar rumours here. Will the parliamentary assistant tell us whether this new policy has been adopted by the Department of National Defence and, if so, why?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The minister has dealt with this problem on three occasions in this chamber, and in my humble opinion he has clearly stated the views of his department and of the government, and the reasons therefor. I do not think I can be expected at this time to add anything further to what he has said, nor do I propose to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Can the parliamentary assistant refer us to any page of Hansard at which the minister dealt with that question as to any change in policy of the department? I can find no reference to that matter.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I would think that the minister's statements speak for themselves. They make clear what the position is. I suppose it is open to the hon. member to make any deduction he chooses to make. The statements are on Hansard in three places. I do not propose to try to elaborate on them or to enlarge on them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the great difficulties that we experience in the House of Commons. The parliamentary assistant was left in charge by the minister because he is fully qualified to speak; otherwise he would not be there. Being fully qualified to speak, he should not be in a position to say to us now: I am not going to give you any more answers; the minister has dealt with that question. After all, the

Canadian Forces Act
minister's statement was an example of massive inconsistency. He said a lot, but at the same time he did not clarify what is being asked not only by the Canadian Council of Churches in conference yesterday but by people of all religious faiths across this country. When I spoke a while ago I referred to two of the organizations. I, of course, meant to include as well the work of the Knights of Columbus and the Canadian Legion. A general statement that this is not being done at the moment does not seem to be sufficient. If the parliamentary assistant was in a position to say that the government had changed its policy from what it was in this regard in the first and second world wars, then the question that would necessarily follow is: Why the change? Where was there any failure on the part of these auxiliary services that they should be denied the opportunity of voluntarily serving their fellow men?
I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar covered the situation completely, and I am not going to go over what he said. People are asking why it is that a ruling such as this, which has every appearance of being arbitrary and unjustifiable, cannot and will not be explained by the department. Has the parliamentary assistant available the replies given to the Y.M.C.A. and to the Salvation Army when offers of assistance were given? Did the Y.M.C.A. offer to furnish the necessary facilities in Korea and at no expense to the Canadian government? What was the reply given by the department in response to that generous offer? The same question applies as well to the Salvation Army, to the Knights of Columbus and to the Canadian Legion. Certainly, in the past the course taken by Canada has always been, as I have understood the attitude of the government, one that they could justify as the course for Canada. Now the explanation is that other nations in Korea have not got this auxiliary service. The people of Canada are not interested in what the other nations have. They want to know why it is that Canadians, offering to serve and to do these things that were so well described by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre from his vast experience in two world wars, have been turned down. If the parliamentary assistant cannot give the answer-and after all one does not expect omniscience from the parliamentary assistant, or a higher degree of knowledge than his minister betrayed-at least he should be able to place before the committee the record showing the replies given to those several auxiliary organizations that offered their services. I should like to 
ask the parliamentary assistant-I keep elevating him to minister-whether he is in the position to furnish the committee with at least a copy of the reply given to one or more of those who offered their services.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I will have to look into the matter raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I have none of the correspondence before me.


Howard Charles Green: That information is surely available from the department, and the information as to whether or not there has been a change in policy should also be available. The bill cannot go through third reading today. I ask the parliamentary assistant to endeavour to get that information just as quickly as possible, and to furnish the house with it before the bill gets third reading. Can we have that assurance from the parliamentary assistant?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall endeavour to do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is just one thing that I should like to add to this. I notice that in his reply on October 29, at page 478 of Hansard the minister mentioned the fact that there were six welfare officers with substaffs of N.C.O.'s and men. In view of the representations which are being made with regard to welfare, if the policy of the department is to keep welfare solely within the hands of military trained personnel, it may be that in time we shall see an increase in the number of people devoted to welfare work. I suggest that is a very uneconomic use of trained officers. The six welfare officers are-what? Are they lieutenants or captains? I doubt whether they could be of the rank of major. If they are captains, after then-long course of training and reaching that rank, I would say their job is elsewhere than in welfare. If they are lieutenants I would judge that they would be shifted about, moved about very rapidly, and would not become very expert at their welfare work.
Subsequently, I asked a question of the minister as to whether or not this welfare work was their special job, meaning, of course, their main job. Information was brought forward yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that they have other tasks in connection with their welfare work. All I say is that when you add it up it is an uneconomic use of manpower. Six officers with substaffs of N.C.O.'s and men trained to fight are allocated to a different task. When we have available volunteers who do not have to be trained in the use of weapons and in all the expensive training required for officers, N.C.O.'s and men, we should make use of their services.



IB, 1951

Howard Charles Green: Could we have an answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre? He asked what rank these officers are who are supposed to be looking after welfare in their units. Surely that information should be available to the parliamentary assistant without any delay.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have no specific information with regard to the individual officers. I understand they are mostly lieutenants-I am not sure whether they are all lieutenants or one or more captains, but they are very carefully selected because of their proven capabilities and qualities which would appear to be adapted to this particular task.
I would just like to make one further remark. I do not think it is really fair to say that the position in Korea, as it is being dealt with on the welfare side, necessarily means a change in basic policy. As the minister pointed out on several occasions, the situation in Korea, in the opinion of the minister and of the government, is being handled in the most feasible and best possible way, having regard to all the circumstances which surround activities there, the terrain and the nature of the situation which there exists. I should like to observe that because I think it is hardly fair to say that there is a basic change in policy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Can the parliamentary
assistant elaborate on the meaning of this word "terrain"? In what respect does the terrain in Korea complicate the problem?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have not been to Korea, but I understand the nature of the fighting and the nature of the terrain leads to isolation of troops, and altogether does not lend itself to the free movement of troops in large numbers as in world wars I and II. It raises problems of isolated groups, lack of communications and a great many other factors which probably militate against the general treatment of the subject of welfare in a way that might be appropriate.


John George Diefenbaker: If there is nothing to suggest a change of policy, is the parliamentary assistant in a position to say whether or not these auxiliary services will be provided to the 27th brigade that now will serve in Europe? For all of these excuses that have been raised for the non-use of these services in Korea would certainly not apply to the army in Europe. Will those Canadians serving in Europe under the Eisenhower command have available to them auxiliary services from Canada?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not in a position to answer that question, Mr. Chairman.
Canadian Forces Act


Major James William Coldwell: I cannot understand this excuse that because of the terrain the auxiliary services cannot be provided by the organizations that provided them in the last war. From my reading of the progress of the Korean war I learn that the troops are not moving very rapidly in either direction, and it seems to me therefore that the points of assembly at the present time are at least fairly static. If that is so, could not these auxiliary services provided by the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army, the Knights of Columbus and so on, be used to give these men the facilities that I spoke of a little earlier? Certainly I think that in the European theatre, where there is no fighting and where the men will only be training, auxiliary services should be provided. Then I cannot understand why these difficulties respecting terrain have been emphasized to such a great extent, because it seems to me there is not the same movement of troops that we had either in the first or second world wars, particularly the second war after the landing in Normandy. I find it difficult to understand, but perhaps the parliamentary assistant could give an explanation. In my own mind, no explanation occurs to me.


Mr. Hosking:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
hon. members realize the situation in the last war. At the beginning of the war, while we were stationed in England, we were serviced by these auxiliary services. I am sure no one would think of disparaging the work they did among local units.
I remember very well, however, that after the invasion had been on for some months and there was a considerable amount of fighting fatigue, when it was found necessary to give the soldiers an opportunity to go away for a day or two of rest there were established in Brussels, Paris and Antwerp what were known as rest centres, where troops could come and be free of duties. At those points they were cared for completely. Homes and camps were found for them, in which they could sleep, so that they had absolutely no arrangements to make for themselves, not even the necessity of finding places where they could eat.
If hon. members who are asking questions today think that all that was done by the auxiliary services, then I would say to them that I know very well that the officer in charge of the rest camp at Brussels, with the assistance of hundreds of fighting troops and civilians, took over a huge building and installed a kitchen and dining room capable of feeding a thousand men per day. Troops would come in there at the rate of a thousand men every three days, and would pass through

Canadian Forces Act
that huge building without any holdup or delay. In there they could have a shower, free haircuts, and then have clean underwear, clean shirts and clean shoes. Pressing machines were set up, and their suits were pressed so that when they had their showers they were turned out as smart soldiers.
None of this was done by the auxiliary services. It was all done by the Canadian army, under control of army headquarters. All the troops who worked there-and there were hundreds of them-in connection with supplying these services were all fighting troops. Most of the men were engineers.
When hon. members suggest that this was done by the auxiliary services, my answer is that it is not so.


Howard Charles Green: We did not say that at all.


Henry Alfred Hosking: While we were stationed in
England we were well serviced by these auxiliary services. But when it comes down to doing the big job that has to be done when the troops are fighting, it becomes a military matter. I wish to compliment the department on the stand it has taken in this connection, and I believe that if the experience of the last war is used, the same procedure will be taken at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member think
there should not be auxiliary services with the troops at the present time?


Mr. Martin:: He did not say that.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am certain that the government that did such a splendid job at Brussels, Antwerp and Paris, under the conditions they had in the last war, is doing today exactly the same fine job, and under the same procedure in Korea.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There has been no suggestion from hon. members in this party that auxiliary services should supply the personnel, and other requirements, for army rest camps such as those to which the hon. member was referring. The army rest camps which were set up at Brussels and Antwerp were entirely different. I have been referring this afternoon to the use of the auxiliary service officer at the battalion or regimental level who goes with the regiment or battalion into the forward areas, where army rest camps are obviously quite out of the question. It is that type of auxiliary service assistance that I think is desirable, and can best be rendered by those who are attached to the auxiliary services.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, there is a
closely related subject to which I would direct the attention of the committee. Yesterday I asked the minister a question with respect to the reception of troops returning from Korea. I was greatly delighted to see

in today's press an account of the reception accorded to 202 men who were returning.
As I said at the outset, I am delighted- and I do not wish to qualify that in any way-with what has been done. But I wish to impress upon the parliamentary assistant and the department that if that can be done, as indeed it was done, for a large body of men, I suggest it is equally important to do it for a small body of men, perhaps only one or two or half a dozen, who are coming through in small groups, and who are on their way back to take courses, as was suggested by the minister, or for some other reason. I believe it is correct to say, although regrettable, that these men in small groups are getting the feeling that no one is particularly interested in their return.
While, as I said, I do not wish to qualify my approval of the reception accorded the larger groups, and in particular the 202 men who returned yesterday, I hope the same enterprise and energy can be put into the preparation of receptions for smaller groups who are coming back.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-"Defence service" and "defence service contributor" defined.
Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask for some information with respect to this section. Subsection 1 states, in part:
(b) "defence service contributor" means a person who satisfies all of the following conditions . . .
(ii)	he was a contributor under the Defence Services Pension Act on or subsequent to the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, and
(iii)	he was retired from the regular forces to enable him to accept an appointment under the National Defence Act or to the staff of the Department of National Defence.
It seems to me there is a discrepancy here. Is there any difference in the percentage rate of contribution made by one who resigned from the services in 1945 and joined the civil service some years later, and those who will now, at the time of the coming into force of this measure, leave the Department of National Defence and go into the civil service? My information is that the man who resigned in 1946 from the Royal Canadian Air Force, and then accepted an appointment in the civil service, uses his military service in respect of the civil service pension plan, and contributes 12 per cent of the initial starting salary. Is that correct?


Ralph Osborne Campney: This is a very limited section. It does not apply to people who have been in the services and who subsequently join the civil service, except when they

become civil servants within the Department of National Defence. It is purely a limited and internal method of allowing people who have been in one of the services in this department, under circumstances which may obtain at any time, to become civil servants in- the same department.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am still not clear on this. The resolution preceding this bill states:
-to provide that persons who have accumulated pensionable service under the Defence Services Pension Act may be able to count that service under the Civil Service Superannuation Act when they retire from the forces to accept civil service appointments in the Department of National Defence;
I am not saying that there is discrimination, but there seems to be some discrepancy in the payments -made. Take the case of men discharged from the forces in 1945 and 1946 who afterwards accepted civil service appointments and those who are -resigning from the services today and accepting similar appointments; -there would seem to be some difference in the contributions made for superannuation purposes. I understand that in the earlier case they paid 12 per cent, whereas today they -pay only 6 per cent.
Let us take a- case in point. I notice from a press dispatch that two army men have accepted civil service appointments. Brigadier Chesley, a native of Ottawa and a former Montreal businessman, has been named assistant deputy minister of defence, and Brigadier Wrinch, a native of Hazelton, B. C., chief signals officer, has accepted another appointment. I am casting no reflection on -these particular men, but I would like to know what their contribution will be under the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


Ralph Osborne Campney: This section- is limited to people going from the services into the Department of National Defence; it is limited to persons who come under the Defence Services Pension Act; it is limited to the regular forces. I am informed that such persons will continue to pay at the same rate.
I think what the hon. member has in mind are persons who served in the forces during one war or the other and then took positions in the civil service. I am not absolutely certain, but my understanding is that they -pay 12 per cent. That has no bearing at all on this section, which stipulates the two limitations I have mentioned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there not a provision that makes it possible for a man to move from one government service to another, calling military service government service, and carry with him his pension rights? I recall that amendments were made a few years ago to the Civil Service Superannuation Act and 94699-70J
Canadian Forces Act
the Minister of Finance said that the purpose was to provide mobility of pension rights. I should like to know whether this is narrowing that mobility or is it to take care of a particular case not provided for?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The general case to which the hon. member referred is that of persons moving from one department to another who were already under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. They would still be in- the same position pension-wise. This section deals with contributions under the Defence Services Pension Act; it has- a limited- application to people who are eligible under that act but who leave to take a position on the civil side of the Department of National Defence. I do not think it intrudes at all into the general superannuation picture. This section covers an isolated set of circumstances which otherwise would work a hardship on people who continue to work in the same department but have left the regular forces to serve in a civil capacity. In many cases their background of service is useful to their continuing in a civil capacity with the department.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I want to pursue this a little further. The parliamentary assistant agrees with me that the contribution made by men who resigned from the services in 1945 and 1946 would be 12 per cent. However, I would like the other side of my question answered. I have mentioned two individuals, in whom I am -not interested at all as individuals, who are accepting positions- with the civil service. Will those men continue to make a contribution of 6 per cent, or will it be the 12 per cent contribution paid by the others?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Six per cent.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Why the difference? I did not say it is discrimination, but there would be some discrepancy considering the difference between 12 per cent and 6 per cent.


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is a class of persons who served in the active forces in one war or the other but who were not in the regular services and -are therefore not making contributions under the Defence Services Pension Act. They are not making contributions under any pension scheme, and when they take civil service positions and want to take advantage of the Civil Service Superannuation Act they are allowed to count the time they have served in the active forces. In view of the fact that they have never paid into any pension scheme they are required to contribute 12 per cent. Those who are in the regular services would have been contributing under the Defence Services Pension Act; they would be contributing toward a pension, whereas those who enter

Canadian Forces Act
the -civil service without having paid into any pension scheme and who wished to have their period of service counted must pay the 12 per cent. However, that is not relevant to this section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I pursue a step further the question I interjected a moment ago. The parliamentary assistant admits that there are provisions in the Civil Service Superannuation Act which make it possible for a civil servant to move from one department of government to another and carry with him his pension rights- He drew attention to the fact that this section makes it possible for a person who has been paying under the Defence Services Pension Act to move into the Department of National Defence. Some of us have wondered why it should not be possible for such a man to move into the civil service generally.
If a person moves from military service where he has been paying under the Defence Services Pension Act into the Department of National Defence and thereby transfers to the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and then moves from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Public Works or some other department, he would carry his pension rights with him to that other department. Why not make a clean break and make it possible for a person to transfer from the Defence Services Pension Act to the Civil Service Superannuation Act?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the basis on which this section rests is this. There are persons who spend quite a few years in the regular forces and thereby acquire certain experience, training and understanding. Incidentally, this class does not involve a great many people. Upon occasion it is felt to be in the best interests of the department that some of the persons with such a background, and who have shown certain aptitudes, should be transferred to the civil side of the administration of the department. If no specific provision is made, then the minute they resign as a member of the regular forces they lose their pension rights under the Defence Services Pension Act. They are then on the civil side and have no status for the period in which they were on what I might call the service side. I think the purpose of the section is merely to make possible the utilization of the services of certain persons from time to time on the civil administration side of the department whose background and training have specially qualified them to be more useful in the wider position than they were in the narrower one.
[Mr. Campney.1


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no objection to the provision, but it struck me that the Department of Defence Production might want such a person, and the legislation does not provide for that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On section 15-Schedule amended.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it clear that clause 15 does not make any change so far as rights or benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act are concerned?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It makes no change.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
On section 18-Reduction or withholding allowance.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This question has occurred to me on a number of these sections, and perhaps I might ask it here as well as on any other. I note the way the word "military" is being changed to the word "army" in so many places. The question is purely for information. Where do the other services come in under that context, the navy and the air force?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Under the new National Defence Act the term "military" is defined as applying to the three services. In order to avoid confusion in- the interpretation of other statutes where the word "military" is used to mean "army", and in order to have the same nomenclature run through all acts, changes are necessary in the wording, as proposed in this section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose that in this case the statute now reads "naval, military and air", and it is being changed to "naval, army and air".


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 19 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On section 22-Definitions.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like the parliamentary assistant to say a word about the procedure which will be followed in summonsing Canadian civilians to appear before United States courts-martial if held in Canada. It seems to me this procedure should be carried out voluntarily where at all possible. I appreciate there must be provision for the formal summonsing of a witness to attend, but it seems to me to be infinitely preferable under these circumstances, where a Canadian is being asked and power is being given to

require him to attend before what is actually a foreign court-martial, that the first approach should be to ask him if he will consent to come. Then if the witness demurs or if it appears obvious that for some reason in connection with his employment he must give some official notification, or some other similar reason, the process of summonsing could be used when necessary. I should like the parliamentary assistant to comment on that situation.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The purpose of the amendment is merely to give the United States authorities power to summon witnesses; but that is going to be subject to regulations, and a great deal of care is being taken in the preparation of these regulations. I would be glad to draw the hon. member's observations to the officials of the department. However, it is necessary to have full power, and I presume the regulations will set out the circumstances under which such power should be exercised.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it possible to say at the moment whether the general intention is that the regulations are to provide that the power will be used only when consent is not forthcoming? Is some such general principle going to be followed?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not sure that the suggestion is practical in the conduct of a case or trial, but I will certainly see that my hon. friend's observations on that point are considered.


Mr. Stick:: We have had a situation in Newfoundland for some time where United States courts-martial require civilian witnesses. Their authorities have worked in co-operation with our local justice department. As I understand this legislation, if the Americans in Newfoundland require a civilian resident of the province as a witness they will first go to the civil authorities and get their permission to call that witness. In other words, the Americans cannot summon a witness without permission of the civil authorities. If that is the case then it does not take any rights away from the civil authority.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is included in the section.


Leonard T. Stick: That is the meaning of the section?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Leonard T. Stick: Although the Americans have the right to call witnesses we do not lose any of our civil rights.
Canadian Forces Act


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
On section 24-Sections amended.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Purely by way of inquiry as to the text, I notice that in the marginal note at the top of page 12 there is reference to the Family Allowances Act, 1944, whereas the section itself appears to relate to the Statute Law Amendment (Newfoundland) Act. Is there an error in the marginal note?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed that the Statute Law Amendment (Newfoundland) Act amends a great many other statutes, and among them is the Family Allowances Act, 1944, to which this specific subsection is related.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25-Chairman of chiefs of staff committee.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I observe that this section provides for the appointment by the governor in council of an officer to be chairman of the chiefs of staff committee. The explanatory note makes it clear that this office has already been established and filled by order in council, of which of course members are well aware. Since we are now going to provide by statute for the position of chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, I am wondering whether, without unduly limiting the right of the governor in council to prescribe his duties, it would not be wise to make some reference in the statute itself to those duties which I understand refer generally to the co-ordination of the work of the Canadian forces with the other forces of the Atlantic pact countries. When the Minister of National Defence made his statement regarding the appointment of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, who is General Foulkes, my recollection is that he said one of the chief duties of this officer would be to provide for the integration of the training and operations of the Canadian forces with the forces of the North Atlantic treaty powers. I wonder, therefore, if it would not be wise to make some general provision that amongst the duties of this officer will be that of integrating the training and operations of the Canadian forces with the forces of any other country with whom Canada may be engaged in a joint effort.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would expect that the duties to which the hon. member refers would at the present time be amongst those of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee.
tttOVlNClAL LIBRA
m/VTADIA 13 C

Canadian Forces Act
This amendment only deals with the National Defence Act, and with the Canadian forces as such. According to section 19 (1) of the National Defence Act, subsection (b), one of the duties of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee is to co-ordinate the training and operations of the Canadian forces, which is the subject matter of the National Defence Act. This amendment also provides that he shall be subject to regulations made by the governor in council, and that he shall be under the direction of the minister. If duties outside those actually in connection with the Canadian forces are deemed desirable to be exercised by the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, it will be merely a matter of direction by the minister. I think it is better to keep the duties of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee flexible, that is duties other than those in connection with the direction of the Canadian forces in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is my point exactly, and that is why I make the suggestion. The section at present provides that the officer in question, the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, shall perform such other duties as shall be assigned to him by the minister. This, nevertheless, requires some executive act on the part of the minister to assign these specific duties to him. My point is this. If the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee is going to be, as he is, largely engaged in connection with the operation of our forces as part of the North Atlantic treaty forces, then it seems to me there may well arise a question as to whether a particular decision or directive of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee is within the scope of his authority. If the statute provided that one of his duties is to generally co-ordinate the training and operations of the Canadian forces with those of any other country with whom we may be generally engaged, then it seems to me the question of whether or not the chairman of the committee was acting within the scope of his authority would not present such a problem. It would not be necessary to refer back to the minister to see if he had authority to do this or that, and that seems to me a situation one could avoid by giving him a general power in the statute.


Ralph Osborne Campney: While I appreciate the point of view expressed by the hon. member I believe the suggestion would be rather dangerous, Mr. Chairman. I believe that if we start trying to spell out the possible duties of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee in relation to the matters in which Canada may be co-operating with other nations, we would reach the point where, if the minister wished him to do
[Mr. Campney.1
some act or take some part in a matter for which he has not specific power under the act, we would be handicapping the flexibility of his duties. If we specifically say what the duties of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee will be in Canada in relation to Canadian forces, and then have him act under the direction of the minister, who by section 4 of the National Defence Act is to have control and management of the Canadian forces, we maintain that flexibility. The minister could easily give any direction under this section that he wished, and in view of the necessity of flexibility in carrying out the duties which may be undertaken by the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, I believe it is better to keep it the way it is here.


Mr. Herridge:: I should like to ask a few questions in connection with section 216A which is headed "Compensation". It seems to me to leave a great deal to regulation, and I should like to get some explanation from the parliamentary assistant. The section reads:
Compensation may be paid to such extent, in such manner and to such persons as the governor in council may by regulation prescribe-
I should like, first of all, to ask the parliamentary assistant to tell the house on what basis that compensation would be paid. Would it be somewhat in line with the Canadian Pension Act or the usual workmen's compensation act? Then it goes on:
-in respect of disability or death resulting from injury or disease or aggravation thereof incurred by any person while
(a)	employed in the public service of Canada,
(b)	employed under the direction of any part of the public service of Canada,-
What is meant by the words "employed under the direction of any part of the public service of Canada"? Then, paragraph (c) reads:
engaged, with or without remuneration, in an advisory, supervisory or consultative capacity in or on behalf of the public service of Canada-
That is quite a wide clause, and I wish the parliamentary assistant would give the committee some illustration of the type of person intended to be covered by that section. Does the section provide for compensation for persons engaged in civil defence, volunteers in connection with fire fighting, and so on, in the cities or municipalities? Then the section continues:
-and performing any function in relation to the Canadian forces, the defence research board or any forces co-operating with the Canadian forces or the defence research board, if the injury or disease or aggravation thereof arose out of or was directly connected with the performance of such function-
Will the parliamentary assistant just explain what is intended by those words, "if

Canadian Forces Act
the injury or disease or aggravation thereof that they might come under this legislation, arose out of or was directly connected with I would not want to give a categorical answer the performance of such function"?	to that question.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the intent of this section is to take care of civilians who are working with the Canadian forces themselves, or with the defence research board, and who may in the course of their duties, whether they be temporary or otherwise, have met with disability or death as outlined in this section. It is to make it possible for them, or their relatives if they are killed, to obtain compensation. Although it is not specifically mentioned, I believe it is the intention that it will be on the pension basis. There are some acts which have sections dealing in detail with this sort of thing, but there has been no section in the National Defence Act that adequately covers it. I believe it is specifically in view of the defence research board and similar activities, and the possibility of disability or death resulting from the activities in which those people are engaged, that this section is inserted to provide for proper compensation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Are the civil defence organizations or persons who may be engaged in assisting to put out fires included in a section such as this?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No; it is specifically stated that it only applies to people working with the Canadian forces, that is the services, or the defence research board. I would take it that it would not apply to people participating in civil defence activities.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The section says "performing any function in relation to the Canadian forces, the defence research board or any forces co-operating with the Canadian forces". I could well imagine a civil defence force cooperating with the Canadian forces.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Under the definition section "forces" means military forces.


George Matheson Murray: Might that not apply to employees on the Alaska highway who come under military direction? There are some hundreds of men employed in my riding on the Alaska highway between Dawson Creek and Fort Nelson and at Watson Lake who are likely to be exposed to highway accidents or injuries in connection with bridge construction and so on. Would that provision take care of them?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot answer that question categorically, but I would rather think that they would come under the Government Employees Compensation Act, which is another statute entirely. But it is possible


George Matheson Murray: They are civilians employed by the army.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask a further question somewhat similar to that asked by the hon. member for Cariboo. In my own district we had a certain jeep and motorcycle accident. The situation is not clear. I am not asking this question for the purpose of criticism but rather for clarification. Just where does the responsibility rest in the case of a member of the regular army, either with or without official capacity, operating a jeep or a motorcycle, where there happens to be an accident in which a civilian is either injured or killed? Does the department assume the ordinary responsibility-and I may say that I am not a lawyer-that would occur if one party or another were responsible for the accident?


Ralph Osborne Campney: In answer to the question asked by the hon. gentleman, may I say that I think the position of the crown is now the same as that of any other employer. In other words, if the driver were acting within the ordinary scope of his employment and of his orders, the crown would be liable. If not, then legally, as I understand the law, the crown would not be liable. It would be a question of fact in each case.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask a follow-up question. Again may I say that unfortunately, or probably fortunately, not being a lawyer, I do not quite understand the legal technicalities of this matter. But in my riding we had a case, if I remember it correctly, in which a motorcycle was involved in an accident. I am not saying who was to blame or who was not to blame. But in that case, if I remember the evidence correctly, there was no recompense to the civilian because this member of the regular force-this is as I remember it, and I am speaking from memory-had no official right to have the vehicle. I think that is what the hon. member for Cariboo had reference to. In this case the operator of the vehicle, which was a Department of National Defence vehicle, should not have been out on the highway, according to the Department of National Defence. Nevertheless that member of the defence forces was out on the highway with a Department of National Defence vehicle; and the fact is that he had an accident, and as a result serious injury or death was caused to a private individual. As I see it, whether the Department of National Defence had sent that individual out or had

Canadian Forces Act
not sent him out, he was operating a Department of National Defence vehicle under licence of the Department of National Defence; and I believe the civilian should have some recompense. I should like to know just where the civilian stands in a matter of that kind.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I say, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be in each case a question of fact. As it would appear to me, if the driver of a motor vehicle owned by the Department of National Defence or by any other department of the crown took that vehicle without authorization to follow out something he himself wanted to do, and an accident should occur, the general law as I understand it is that the owner of the vehicle-in this case the crown-would not be liable. On the other hand, if he were authorized to do what he was doing by the army or by the crown in any capacity, the crown would be liable for any negligence resulting in injury or death to a third party.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to follow that matter up. I am not a distinguished member of the bar of British Columbia as is the parliamentary assistant, but I happen to pay several hundred dollars a year in insurance; I will not say several hundred, but quite a large amount. I have two cars, and they are good cars, too. They both belong to me. I operate one car and my sister operates the other. My understanding is this, and my distinguished friend who is well versed in the law of the province of British Columbia will correct me if I am wrong, because I am going to ask for a rebate of my insurance premiums on those two cars. If an accident occurs I understand that I, through the insurance company, am responsible for that accident.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Two-car Cruickshank.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is unfair of the hon. member for Kamloops. I want to be clear on this matter. If I am wrong, I want to be corrected by some of the legal lights from my own province of British Columbia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Be careful; they will send you a bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If they sent me a bill I would know that I was at least being legally taxed, as I would not be if I received one from those who are not of the legal profession. I want to have this matter clear, and I want to be corrected if I am wrong. I should like to have a little bit of free legal advice. I do not have the privilege in this chamber of going where I go for my advice in a certain other place, where I happen to have a friend who, next to the hon. member

for Peel, possibly has as good a legal reputation as anyone in the Dominion of Canada. I am not allowed to mention the name, but anyway he is a senator from Vancouver. I cannot see why I am obliged to pay insurance premiums to protect a private car against accident. The insurance company will say whether I am to blame through negligent driving or anything else; and I can be corrected by my legal friends on this. If I am to blame, as I understand it, under private insurance anybody who is injured is protected. I understand that is the law in my own province. If somebody steals my car or if a certain relative takes it without my consent and an accident happens, the insurance company is liable or I, as owner of that car, am responsible. That is my understanding, and I can be corrected if I am wrong. If the Department of National Defence has a jeep, a motorcycle, or any other vehicle, and it is taken either with or without the consent of the commanding officer-exactly in the same way as with a private car-and somebody is injured or killed, I cannot see why the federal government should not be responsible. I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant, who not only has the advantage of great army experience but who is also possibly one of the most distinguished members of the bar of British Columbia, to give me an answer.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify the matter-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us first get an answer to the question that has just been asked.


George Matheson Murray: If I may be permitted to do so, I should just like to quote a case on the Alaska highway. Some young soldiers in a military vehicle were in collision with a farm wagon. A child was killed. The soldier responsible was duly tried, and all that sort of thing, but still the little girl's life was gone and no compensation was paid to the parents. The farmer suffered the loss of his vehicle and perhaps his horse was killed. There was great loss. Probably this would take care of a case of that kind and compensation could be provided for anybody who was injured through a military vehicle getting out of hand and running amuck on the public highway.


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is very dangerous for a lawyer to be drawn into giving free legal advice, but after the flattering remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley I might make a couple of observations. I think, whether a car is insured or not, the liability for the negligence of the driver remains the same. In other words, if under the motor vehicle act of a province and the insurance act a man

who, like the hon. member, can afford two cars permits someone else to drive one of them he is statutorily bound, and so is the insurance company, to take cognizance of that. But if somebody steals his car, or takes it without authority, I think his position is entirely different. In that regard the same applies to crown vehicles as to private vehicles. If there is negligence on the part of the driver of a crown vehicle, if the driving is done in the course of his employment, as I understand it the crown is liable. But if he takes a car that belongs to the crown and without the permission of the crown goes joyriding on his own, the crown is not liable, nor would any other employer be liable, so far as I am aware.


Mr. Ferrie:: Suppose that man is killed. Who is going to take care of the family if he is a married man?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know whether or not the parliamentary assistant recalls, but in British Columbia we have a fund called the unsatisfied judgments fund, which was instituted for the very purpose of taking care of judgments against persons who have killed or otherwise maimed others in motor vehicle accidents and are not able to pay the amount of the damages to the injured person. After certain requirements have been gone through and it can be proven that the guilty party has no assets, the injured person can recover from the unsatisfied judgments fund. That is why it was put there. Every time the hon. member for Fraser Valley buys a motor vehicle licence a portion of his payment goes into a fund to build up the unsatisfied judgments fund.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Other hon. members ought to compliment me, through you, Mr. Chairman, on getting a little free legal advice around here. I have had a lot to do with legal cases, but I have had very little free advice from lawyers. I am thinking of a case in Chilliwack. It had to do with a motorcycle accident. Am I to understand that whether it is an army jeep or an army motorcycle that law would apply?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is a very dangerous thing to be doing. In such a case a judgment would be given personally against the soldier who had driven negligently. That is subject to correction. My understanding would be that if that soldier did not have sufficient assets to pay the judgment, and the crown said, "In this case we do not accept liability because it was outside the scope of his employment", then as I say, subject to correction because I would have to check up on the details of the unsatisfied judgments act, I would think
Canadian Forces Act
the person could recover from that fund, if a judgment had been given against the soldier personally for negligent driving.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I appreciate very much the free legal advice I have received on behalf of one of my constituents, as has been pointed out by a very distinguished member of the bar of my province. But what I am getting at, sir-


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: You get what you pay for.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -is this. Take this case. I will not mention the name. A person from my province gets a judgment against an individual. He owns a Ford car and nothing else. What good does that do him? But what I want to know, sir-and I would like, with all respect, to have an opinion from a far more responsible member of the bar of my province than I have received so far-is this. Suppose a judgment is given against myself as an individual and I am covered by an insurance company. That insurance company protects the injured person or me as the owner of the vehicle. I submit that I am responsible in a court of law irrespective of whether I am right or wrong in the accident, and irrespective of whether my brother, my sister, my wife or somebody else was driving the car.
This happened in my riding, and that is why I want the information. The decision was given by a man who should know, who is responsible and capable both in his majestic qualities as a parliamentary assistant and as a legal light in my province. If a vehicle is owned and operated by a soldier, is he not in the same position as a private individual who carries private insurance? Suppose a soldier is driving a car owned by the crown without the consent of the department, and he is involved in an accident. Whether the accident is fatal or otherwise, who is responsible? Is the department responsible, or has that private individual the right of recourse? I am going to get some great legal advice for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. In this connection fortunately there are two Rhodes scholars-


James Sinclair: I have no intention of giving any advice whatever to the hon. member.


Gordon Graydon: He is not the only Rhodes scholar.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My hon. friend just overstepped himself. I knew he was not capable of giving me any advice in this connection. I knew before that he knew nothing about law and confined himself to mining engineering. I was referring to two other lawyers. I think they can help me.

North Atlantic Treaty


Gordon Graydon: Your trouble is that you see double; there is only one over there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: This happened at the Vedder bridge. I would like a ruling. It the parliamentary assistant cannot give it to me now I would like it at a later date. I should like to know just exactly where the responsibility lies if a member of His Majesty's services is operating a car or a vehicle owned by the crown and he kills or injures somebody. Who is responsible?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I can see now the danger of giving free legal advice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Especially when they will not take it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would be very glad to go into the case in some detail with my hon. friend. It just occurred to me that the section we are now considering does not deal with people who hurt someone but with people in the service who themselves get hurt. Perhaps we can finish this section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 26 to 29 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Alphonse Fournier: Now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra had to attend a committee meeting. He has expressed interest in the bill, and asks that it be read the third time at the next sitting.


Alphonse Fournier: Next sitting.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 22, to implement the agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces, signed on the 19th day of June, 1951.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On section 4-Application of act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the parliamentary
assistant explain the significance of section 4. I am wondering particularly if this makes it

possible, so far as Canada is concerned, for the act to apply to some of the associated states, but not to others. That is to say, on what basis might it be brought into effect for some and not for all the North Atlantic treaty powers?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it might be helpful if we referred to sections 4 and 5 and discussed them together, because they are related. The purpose of section 5 is to empower the governor in council to take whatever action may be desired in the light of circumstances affecting any particular state or states. In other words it is the intention that the application shall have the greatest possible flexibility, because of the circumstances attending the negotiation of this treaty. It is desired to put the government in a position to give effect to any of the provisions of this agreement at any time, and to make possible whatever action may be required as time goes on in order to implement any part of the treaty which might not now be of current importance.
Section 4 limits the application of the measure to states which have been designated by, and to the extent they have been designated by, section 5, which succeeds it. The net result is that it does give the governor in council power to apply this measure, in whole or in part, to all the nations who ratify .the agreement, or to any of them, and also to apply it to additional nations which may come in later. I think .the intention is to keep it as flexible as possible. For example, some state might not sign. Various contingencies might arise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Proclamations.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the parliamentary
assistant say why it is necessary to have paragraph (c) in this section? I do not understand that the agreement itself, which we are approving, makes any reference to the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act or the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act. Therefore I do not see why it should be necessary to say that those acts apply.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the reason is that
in many ways this measure parallels the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act and the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act. It is also desired that this measure should be kept flexible, because there would be some interrelation between all these measures until the situation clarifies. For that reason it would be desirous to keep their powers as parallel as possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This section states that the
governor in council may by proclamation

declare either of the two acts I have mentioned to be inapplicable in respect of any associated state. Does that mean that, without such declaration, the provisions of those other acts are applicable to associated states? Surely they are not applicable, unless they are expressly declared to be so.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The two specific acts the
hon. member mentioned are in each case respectively applicable only to the other named parties, the British commonwealth in the first place and the United States of America in the other. This measure will be generally applicable; but so long as these two statutes I have mentioned remain in force it may be necessary and desirable to have some parts of one or other of those acts apply in a specific case, and some parts of this act, as of any given time. In other words, while these other acts continue to exist, I believe the intention is to have this act parallel them, and thus make it possible for the governor in council to apply a piece of this act and a piece of that, if circumstances make it desirable to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then the purpose of this is
the exact reverse of what I understood. Do I understand the purpose is that there may be conditions which would make it desirable, instead of applying the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act to a commonwealth country, to apply this act instead? Therefore the governor in council would say, "Well, the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act is not applicable, but this one is applicable." Is that so?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I may say that this measure parallels in part the two specific acts to which reference has been made. But those two acts go very much further and cover a much wider field. They deal with many matters that are not considered in this bill. It may be desirable in a specific case to apply this measure, plus parts of either of the other acts. It is desired to maintain a position so that the governor in council may integrate the two, or utilize this act and some parts of either of the other acts in respect of the countries concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But this confers power on the governor in council to repeal or make inapplicable, with respect to a country with which we have entered into a treaty or agreement, sections of that agreement, or rather of the act implementing the agreement. I do not see why there is placed in this statute dealing with a new agreement a provision which, in effect, allows us to revoke the old agreement. I should be interested to know whether the possibility of revoking parts of the other agreements has been discussed with countries of the British commonwealth
North Atlantic Treaty
and the United States, to which those other agreements relate. Also, why is the power to revoke them or to make them inapplicable put in this measure which approves a new treaty?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I might say that discussions are at present in progress in regard to the position of the two specific statutes referred to in this section. Meantime, until they are clarified and reconciled-because there are a number of intricate matters involved in this bill as well as in the other statutes- the intention is to keep parallel power ini the governor in council; to make some parts of this act applicable, if desirable, and if those parts conflict with either of the other acts, to make such parts of those acts inapplicable. This is necessary in order that there will not be two attempts to deal with the same matter.
Mr Fulton: That is what I wanted to know.


Leonard T. Stick: I should like to make some general remarks. In 1941 a defence treaty was entered into between Newfoundland, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. That was known as the protocol of March 27, 1941. An agreement was entered into during the war. This bill contains as a schedule the agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces. As I understand it, and I may be wrong, if we pass this bill with the schedule it will mean that the defence act will be amended, but does it mean- also that the original -agreement between- Newfoundland, Canada, the United Kingdom and -the United States with regard to bases in Newfoundland will be amended? There is also an arrangement between Canada and Newfoundland with regard to the Goose Bay airport. This matter is important as far as we are concerned, -and I should like to -have it clarified.


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is my understanding that the passage of this legislation would not automatically supersede or abrogate the existing leased bases agreement. I understand further that -the interrelationship between, and the effect of one upon the other are now the subject of study by the parties concerned. What the ultimate outcome will be when- the discussions have been concluded I am unable to state.


Leonard T. Stick: I have not the record here, but I believe it was stated in the house when we were dealing with the agreement set out on page 10 that it was the result of negotiations that had been going on for two or three years with regard to the status of United States forces in Newfoundland. This matter should be clearly defined here so we will know

North Atlantic Treaty
where we stand. Is there anything in this legislation which will contravene the agreement of 1941? As the negotiations are not completed, if the parliamentary assistant will give me assurance that this legislation will not prejudice our case I shall let the matter stand. The United States forces have been in Newfoundland for some time, and I understand that they are to be there for ninety-nine years. The relations between the United States forces and ourselves have been most cordial, and I would hate to see anything conflict with them.


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is my understanding that there may be some slight clash with the original agreement to which my hon. friend has referred. That is one of the things now under discussion by the parties to the original agreement. We cannot by a unilateral statute abrogate that other agreement; that will have to be done by mutual consent. I take it that it would be only after the parties thereto have reached agreement that the conflicts created by this legislation would be resolved.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Sentences.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Like the hon. member for Fraser Valley I am not a lawyer, but I would like the parliamentary assistant to explain this section. It reads in part:
(a)	the service court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted:
(b)	its proceedings shall be deemed to have been regularly conducted;
(c>
the sentence shall be deemed to have been within the jurisdiction of the service court and in accordance with the law of the associated state; and
(d) if the sentence has been executed according to the tenor thereof, it shall be deemed to have been lawfully executed.
That means that if a man was improperly hanged, it shall be deemed to have been properly done.


Ralph Osborne Campney: This clause will permit visiting forces to deal with their own service personnel as though they were in their own country. While not exactly similar word for word, this section practically conforms to the wording of a similar section in the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act and in the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act. It is a comprehensive section enabling the visiting forces to deal with their own personnel in another country without interference from the country in which the trial is taking place.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand the hon. member for Kootenay West wishes to press this matter a little further, but before he does so

I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant whether in the absence of some expression making it clear that you are entitled to disprove the presumption which is created, the effect of this section would be to prevent you from disproving it. The section reads:
Where any sentence has been passed by a service court within or without Canada upon a member of the navy, army or air force of an associated state, for the purposes of any legal proceedings within Canada
(a) the service court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted;
And so on. These things will all be deemed to have been done.	It seems to
me that this section has the force of an irrebuttable presumption. It would appear to me that great injustices could ensue because a service court of an associated state might commit a grave error in justice. Conceivably a year or eighteen months later that might be found out, but in the meantime the proceedings taken in Canada leading to the sentence or verdict of the court will be presumed to have been proper. Some words should be inserted to provide itfaait, unless the contrary be affirmatively proved, it shall be deemed to have been in order. That would leave the door open in the event of a miscarriage of justice.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The purport of subsection 1 is to create an irrebuttable presumption as the hon. member has said, but it is based on the fact that it has been mutually deemed not advisable by the different nations which are now associated to interfere in the carrying out of justice each according to its own law and its own practice and procedure in respect of its own service personnel. I think the meaning of the provision that the service court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted is that it applies only as far as Canadian law is concerned. It is still open to dispute under the laws of the country carrying out the trial. The whole section is based on the principle that one nation will not interfere with another in the conduct of its own courts dealing with its own personnel.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That object is desirable, but surely the section goes far beyond that. It enables the government of an associated state to carry out in Canada with respect to its nationals the results of a finding by its service court. Let me give you an illustration, as I see it. Let us say that sentence has been passed by the service court of an associated state upon one of the members of its forces who owns property within Canada, and proceedings are instituted with respect to the property in Canada of the member of the associated state's

forces. The effect of this section is to say that with respect to the property situated in Canada, in which there may be other interests as well, our courts are bound to recognize and to assume that the verdict of the foreign court was proper, although in fact there may have been some miscarriage of justice. In other words it seems to me the section goes a great deal further than merely avoiding interference with the proceedings of a foreign court because it gives effect in Canada to the verdict of the foreign court and does not enable us to question the propriety of the proceedings or the legality of the sentence.
I think it should certainly be reserved to those in Canada who may be affected by the verdict of what amounts to a foreign court to prove affirmatively that the verdict was somehow wrong and that therefore it cannot be given effect to with respect to interests in Canada. I am not referring to interests in a foreign country but only to interests in Canada.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I should like to call this fact to my hon. friend's attention with regard to the section. The section only deals with trials by service courts-that is criminal jurisdiction, practically-and not with civil rights or property or anything of that nature. The Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, which has been in effect since 1933, and therefore throughout the last war, has the same wording. Section 3, subsection 3, of that act says that for the purposes of any legal proceedings within Canada the court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted, and so on. The Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act of 1947 contains similar wording. In section 6, subsection 1, that act says that the court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted and its proceedings deemed to have been regularly conducted.
The only intention of this section of the bill is to adopt generally what has been established in one act which has been in effect for eighteen years and in another act which has been in effect for four or five years, and which seems to have worked very well. I am informed that no difficulties in the operation of either have been brought to the attention of the authorities. The intention is to apply the same section practically word for word to similar circumstances as affecting the associated nations. In that connection we must remember that in all probability-nobody can say with certainty-we will be the visiting forces much more often than we will be the receiving nation. I think this lack of interference in any country to which our forces may go is something rather to be desired from the point of view of our own forces.
North Atlantic Treaty


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let me point out to the parliamentary assistant that there are service offences for which men would be tried which might have consequences in Canada. Take, for instance, the case of a man accused of desertion from the armed forces of an associated state who come to Canada. He is tried in the service court of that associated state, found guilty by that court and branded as a deserter. As I understand the law at present that foreign country would have the right to demand the extradition of this person from Canada and the person in Canada would not be entitled to say: The proceedings in the court which found me a deserter are a nullity, which in fact they might have been. Therefore we would simply have to recognize that verdict and the man would have to be sent back. That is merely an example which occurs to me quickly, but I am sure similar types of situations can be multiplied. Therefore the effect of the verdict even of a service court may be of very great interest and concern to people who are in Canada.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In answer to the last observation of the hon. member, I think one must admit that cases could arise which would be cases of hardship, if you like. I am informed that in the operation of the other two statutes such cases have not arisen but they might arise. However, it seems to me that is a circumstance in which we cannot intervene. We are either going to let the other nation, whether its procedure is good, bad or indifferent or whether or not its justice is of the same high standard as ours, handle trials in disciplinary and criminal matters within its own forces or we are not. If we start to intervene by indirection or attempt to bring the matter before our courts, I am afraid we may get into more confusion than we think.


Leonard T. Stick: As I understand it, the National Defence Act now says that if a civilian employed by the military commits an offence within a military zone he is tried by a civilian court. Does that apply to civilians working on the United States bases in Newfoundland? We have a number of Newfoundlanders working with the Americans on United States bases. If one of them commits an offence within the confines of the base is he tried by the United States court or is he tried by the Newfoundland civil courts?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed that as a result of the discussions which are going on regarding modification of the agreement to which my hon. friend referred, the civil courts will have jurisdiction; but it is one of the things still under discussion.
Hr. Slick: Even though the offence is committed within the confines of the United States base?

North Atlantic Treaty


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is my information.


Leonard T. Stick: He will be tried by a civil court?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It will be possible when the modifications are put into effect.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not a lawyer, but I am not at all satisfied with the explanation of the parliamentary assistant. I cannot express my objections in the language of the hon. member for Kamloops, but I certainly support his argument. I smell a certain amount of injustice in this section of the bill. As a matter of fact I had some considerable army experience in the first world war and I know what can happen sometimes when things are supposed to be right and then turn out to be wrong. I was carted five miles to a court-martial once and then they found they had the wrong man. You can understand my feelings when a question like this is involved. I do not see why parliament should pass legislation permitting any injustice to any person on Canadian soil, whether or not he is a member of other forces. This parliament is in Canada, and we in Canada believe in the rights of the individual and in giving justice to all on Canadian soil. Therefore because of our approach to the situation and the argument put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops I wish to move, by way of amendment to clause 10:
That the following words be inserted after the word "state" in line 21, "unless the contrary be affirmatively proved."


Edmund Davie Fulton: In view of the importance
attached to this matter, I wonder whether we could suggest to the parliamentary assistant that possibly the clause and the amendment should stand pending the return of the minister, or does he wish to dispose of it at the moment?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Personally I do not think any good would be gained by having the clause stand. I would rather request the hon. member to withdraw his amendment for the following reason. As I understand it, it is inherent in the whole agreement of the North Atlantic treaty countries that one nation will not interfere with the service forces of another visiting nation. I can understand the thoughts that actuated my hon. friend, but when twelve nations have agreed upon a certain line of conduct as being in the best interests of all those nations, and this after many months of difficult negotiation, if we now start amending this statute so as to interfere with that agreement we would, in effect, be reneging on the treaty. The interrelationship of the courts as among the associated nations, whether civil or military, has proven to be a very complicated subject 
and the cause of lengthy discussions. Finally, all the signatories to this agreement have decided on the various types of courts and jurisdictions, so I do not think I could accept the amendment. I believe that is a reasonable stand to take.
In addition, I do not see that any good purpose would be served, under these circumstances, in having the matter stand, much as I should like to accommodate my hon. friend.


George Matheson Murray: The amendment
suggests that we in Canada have the final say; that we are above all other nations. We arrogate unto ourselves the position of being supreme. What we decide is right. Of course I am not speaking as a lawyer, but other nations have their laws and they may think very highly of their codes. To support that amendment would make us appear rather ridiculous.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to deal with the point made by the parliamentary assistant, and which has been followed up by the member for Cariboo. I suggest earnestly that they have not appreciated the effect of the amendment. There is no suggestion that we should interfere in the proceedings or in the sentence of the service court of an associated power, or that we should say how they should conduct their affairs or what they shall do with their own personnel as the result of the proceedings of their court. The section, as it is presently drawn, makes it possible for results to follow in Canada, with respect to people who are in Canada, which may be deemed to be an injustice.
So long as a person is under the control of his own service court, the amendment would not have any effect on what happened. It is only when that person happens to come to Canada and not be in the control of his own forces or when the verdict of the foreign service court has an effect with respect to rights or property in Canada, that the amendment concerns itself and we concern ourselves on behalf of the rights and interests in Canada. In the amendment we are not seeking to say that the proceedings and verdicts of the foreign service court are, ipso facto, bad. We are not adopting any sort of arrogant attitude such as the hon. member for Cariboo has suggested; that is not it at all. We are recognizing and observing the presumption that the proceedings and verdict of the foreign service court are good, but if it is affirmatively proven in the individual case that they were not good, that there was some difficulty in the proceedings according to their own laws, surely that principle should be

allowed to stand. It should be open to someone here to bring such proof that there was a defect in the proceedings of the foreign court, according to the laws of that foreign country. That is all we are seeking to do by the amendment.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think I understand the purport of the amendment, but it seems to me, first of all, that this does not affect property rights. It only affects criminal and service charges, as I understand it. The second thing is that it seems to me that if we were permitted by this amendment to exercise a latent jurisdiction which may become active in the administration of justice of a visiting nation in respect of its own people, we would be opening up the way for writs of habeas corpus, quo warranto proceedings, and all such proceedings. Each of these nations has its own procedure by way of appealing or of dealing with cases which have gone wrong, either in respect of procedure or in the result. No doubt in each case the man concerned would have access to such procedure. In my humble opinion, if we seek to exercise a review of such judgment in order to say whether the sentence was proper or the trial properly conducted, it would amount to nothing more nor less than an interference, perhaps with good intent but with bad effect, with the administration of justice of the visiting nation. In all cases under this section the visiting nation is only dealing with its own people. I do not see how the rights of other people can very well enter into the type of service trial that is envisaged by this section.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was rather surprised to hear the parliamentary assistant state "well, after all this does not apply to property rights, but to criminal acts". He seemed to imply that if it were a property right it would have some application, but since it only applies to human beings-


Ralph Osborne Campney: May I object to that remark. I inferred from what the hon. member for Kamloops said that there might be third parties, Canadians, who might be involved in property rights or other interests arising out of a case. I was trying to emphasize that, in my opinion, it would only be the national of the visiting country who would be concerned. Certainly I am not deprecating human life as against property rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let me clear up that point, because it seems to me that a national of a foreign country might also have an interest in property in Canada. His status is affected by the decision of the foreign court, and it may then be that his right to the property in Canada is going to be affected as a result of
North Atlantic Treaty
the decision, say as to whether or not he is a deserter. It would certainly have some bearing on property and civil rights in Canada, as well as upon the status of the foreign person.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 24.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 to 27 inclusive agreed to.
On section 28-Coming into force.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it the intention that this act will not be proclaimed until a certain number of other countries have passed similar statutes bringing it into effect?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot categorically
answer the hon. member as to when it is likely to be proclaimed; but it is provided under the treaty, I think, that it cannot come into effect until at least four signatory states have ratified it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the schedule.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not want to go over the schedule numeralled paragraph by numeral-led paragraph, but may we take it article by article?


Alphonse Fournier: It is repetition.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is that agreed?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am in the hands of the committee; but my understanding is that except in so far as this treaty applies to the armed forces in the limited field that has been covered by this bill, it is the subject of a more general bill that deals with the treaty itself-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no. That is the other bill.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is right. I was thinking of the clauses contained in the other measure. I am sorry.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I perhaps need not make that request if I may be allowed to put a general question. The question is with respect to the recovery of judgments in the case of an accident taking place.


Alphonse Fournier: Under what clause of the treaty?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under the schedule.


Alphonse Fournier: Under what article of the schedule?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it is article VIII.


Alphonse Fournier: Could we carry the others and get down to article VIII?


Leonard T. Stick: Why not carry them all
together?

North Atlantic Treaty


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it is article VIII.


Alphonse Fournier: Does the hon. member wish that we carry each article of the schedule?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. What I wanted to ask is this. My understanding with regard to the effect of article VIII, in conjunction with article VII, the preceding one-although it arises mainly under article VIII-is that damages are recovered in this way. Let us take the case of a Canadian in France doing damage to civilian property. My understanding is that the French civilian who is injured cannot recover his damages from the government of Canada as part of what is called the knock for knock agreement even though the Canadian soldier may have been on duty, but that there is nothing to prevent the French civilian from recovering a civil judgment against the Canadian soldier. As I understand it, this would then leave him the right to take out execution against the property of the soldier in Canada. It is rather a tenuous right for a French civilian, and an expensive proceeding for him to have to look to the resources of the soldier in Canada in order to recover his judgment. As I read the article, there is given to the government of the country of whose forces the soldier is a member a discretion to pay a civilian claim if it wishes; but it does not have to Normally it can be taken care of under this knock for knock agreement. Since that provision, it seems to me, would work hardship upon the civilian, I want to know whether there is any policy laid down with respect to this matter.
When I had to suffer the penance of serving in the adjutant general's branch of Canadian military headquarters in London for a short time, I remember our files were full of road accident cases where Canadian soldiers had done damage to the property of English civilians. There were cases of hardship at that time, and such cases were -eventually taken care of in the United Kingdom by their over-all war damage policy with respect to their own civilians. If that had not been the case the consequent hardship would, I think, have created bad feeling between English civilians and Canadian soldiers. That sort of situation can grow into bad feeling. I am wondering whether there is any policy whatever here for the recognition of claims by the Canadian government and for payment by the Canadian government for damage done by Canadian soldiers in foreign countries to the property of civilians there, even though the Canadian government is relieved from liability under the article of this treaty.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The knock for knock agreement applies only as between members of the various forces. In the case referred to by my friend earlier in his remarks, if I understood him correctly, that of the French civilian, under the provisions of the relevant article it is my understanding that the civilian would proceed in a French court against the French government; and if he recovered a judgment, the French government would then communicate

the man concerned being a Canadian soldier, of course-with the Canadian authorities and we would pay 75 per cent of the judgment and the French government would pay 25 per cent. That is the general procedure. In other words, the civilian proceeds against his own government, although another government is the ultimate one against whom the judgment is realized. There is a general arrangement among the nations that it will be on a 75-25 basis, for obvious reasons, so that both governments keep interested in the case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it not necessary that the French government should recover a judgment or that the Canadian soldier should be proceeded against to And out whether he was negligent?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think paragraph (a) of section 5 of article VIII probably deals with that point. It reads as follows:
Claims shall be filed, considered and settled or adjudicated in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving state with respect to claims arising from the activities of its own armed forces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the government of the country visited-that is France in this case- that is responsible for 75 per cent of the damage?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Twenty-five per cent. If it were a Canadian soldier, the French government would be responsible ultimately for 25 per cent of the judgment.


Leonard T. Stick: In article VII, paragraph 9 (d) we find this:
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour, if they are within the jurisdiction of the receiving state.
Does that mean the same as what was referred to previously here this afternoon, that when you want a witness you apply to the receiving state and have the summons issued by the receiving state for the appearance of the witness?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Leonard T. Stick: Paragraph 10 (b) of article VII reads:
outside these premises, such military police shall be employed only subject to arrangements with the authorities of the receiving state and in liaison with

those authorities, and in so far as such employment is necessary to maintain discipline and order among the members of the force.
I am glad that provision is there. During the last war we had Canadian and United States forces in Newfoundland, and we found that military police were sometimes usurping the authority of the civil police. There was confusion as to which jurisdiction applied, whether the military police had jurisdiction outside the military bases or otherwise. This provision seems to be the result of the experience we had in Newfoundland. Now I see this clause to the effect that they work in conjunction with the civil authorities. I am happy to have that provision there because it is going to clear up a situation in Newfoundland which we wanted cleared up. But with respect to the question of compulsory witnesses, I take it the process will be the same as in the bill we passed earlier this afternoon. If you want a witness you apply to the civil authorities, who issue a summons for that witness to appear. Does that apply here?i


Ralph Osborne Campney: That section was passed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read
the third time?


Howard Charles Green: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to consolidate and revise the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act and the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, and certain other acts: to provide for the organization and functions of the treasury board and the Department of Finance, and the appointment and functions of the comptroller of the treasury; to regulate the collection, management and disbursement of public money, public borrowing, the management of the public debt, and the acquisition, recording and issue of public stores; to provide for the keeping of adequate public accounts, the audit thereof, and the appointment, salary and functions of the Auditor General of Canada; to provide for the control of the financial affairs of crown corporations; to regulate the terms and conditions upon which contracts may be made on behalf of His Majesty; to provide a procedure for the write-off of debts owing
Financial Administration to His Majesty that have become uncollectible; and to provide for the management of the consolidated revenue fund and for the making of certain payments therefrom.


Howard Charles Green: Will the parliamentary assistant give us an explanation?


Alphonse Fournier: In committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In view of the importance of the measure, could we have a statement at this stage?


James Sinclair: I am entirely in the hands of the house. This bill is, in the main, a revision of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, first introduced in 1878 and patterned at that time on the British act of 1866. It had no substantial revision until 1931, when Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, who was also minister of finance at the time, introduced the first major amendments. He gave as the reason the very great change in the financial scope of federal government affairs in the period between 1878 and 1931. I might say a very excellent job of revision was done at that time. The bill was referred to the public accounts committee.
Hon. members will agree that there has been just as much change in federal government activity between 1931 and 1951 as there was in the years between 1878 and 1931. Branches of the government administration have been increasingly aware of the limitations of the 1931 act, and this was made the subject of a special study by the public accounts committee two years ago. As a consequence the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) introduced this resolution and a bill on June 25, 1951, not with the intent of passage at that time, but to enable the bill to be put into the hands of all members to study before being reintroduced at this session. The bill is an extremely technical one, of application to every phase of government activity, and I know that hon. members welcomed the opportunity for detailed study over the past recess.
When the minister introduced the bill last session he made a very full explanation of the general principles. He expected to be here to reintroduce the bill at this session, but he has had to attend the NATO meeting and will not return until the end of the month. Since it is desired to get this bill through this session, the minister has asked me to reintroduce the resolution at this session. It is of course the intention to refer the bill immediately to the public accounts committee, which is well qualified for this task because of the study it made two years ago. I do not expect that the house will want me to lead the full explanation given

Financial Administration by the minister, since it is in Hansard of June 25, 1951. If there is any desire for it I have prepared a short summary of the minister's speech at that time, which I will be prepared to read.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant had better give us that.


James Sinclair: This is the first time I have ever read a speech in the house, and I read very badly. Therefore I hope hon. members will put up with it.


Howard Charles Green: You read the one you made a minute ago.


James Sinclair: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra has always referred to that as following his notes very carefully.
The resolution seeks to reintroduce a measure providing for the financial administration of the government of Canada, the audit of the public accounts and the financial control of crown corporations. The measure is in substantially the same form as the bill which was introduced by the Minister of Finance at the last session of parliament and given first reading on June 25, 1951.
As the minister pointed out, the purpose of the measure is threefold. In the first place it is designed to provide the organizational and procedural framework for the financial administration of the government of Canada. As such it will constitute a consolidation and modernization in simplified, clarified and amended form of the provisions now included in the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act, the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, and various other statutes. In the second place it will provide the statutory authority for departments to operate central stores accounts on a basis similar in principle to that provided in the Department of Transport Stores Act; and in the third place it is proposed to establish a more uniform and comprehensive system for regulating the financial relationships between the government and its crown corporations.
In replacing the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act and the main portion of the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act the new bill will define the powers and functions of the minister and the Department of Finance, the treasury board, the auditor general and the comptroller of the treasury. It will provide for managing the consolidated revenue fund and for regulating the manner in which public moneys may be paid into and out of the fund. It will determine the accounting requirements to be observed in receiving, managing and disbursing public money, and will prescribe the general form and content of the public accounts. It will


clarify the present statutory provision relating to public borrowing and the managing of the public debt.
As the minister pointed out, the bill will define more clearly the powers in the field of operation of the treasury board. It will provide for the board to advise the governor in council on financial matters and on conditions of employment and general administrative policy in the public service. It will include specific provision for the board to make regulations with respect to the collection, management and administration of and accounting for public money, the keeping of records of public property, and the administration of the public service; and, when authorized by the governor in council, to perform certain administrative duties now performed by the council under the civil service and certain pensions and superannuation acts. By relieving council of some of these routine matters, there will be a considerable reduction in the volume of work which now comes before it. Moreover, it will mean that many of these matters which are now referred to the treasury board before being considered in council will be dealt with more expeditiously than in the past.
The bill carefully preserves the auditor general's independence, and reaffirms his special status as a servant of parliament. The anomalous requirement in the present legislation whereby the auditor general, if so directed by the governor in council, must audit the accounts of any branch of the public service before payment, will not be reenacted. This provision has seemed to be quite inconsistent with his position as an officer independent of the executive, and under the new bill it is proposed that he will not be required to commit himself to the propriety of expenditures before payment.
Under present legislation it is the statutory duty of the comptroller of the treasury to undertake these prepayment examinations and to satisfy himself that there is adequate authority for all disbursements, and that there are sufficient unencumbered balances available in the relevant appropriations to cover them. The new bill re-enacts these provisions in substantially unchanged form, with only such additions as experience has shown are desirable. In consequence, the control of commitments and of issues out of the consolidated revenue fund will continue to be the special responsibility of the comptroller. In addition, however, provision will be made for the comptroller to furnish accounting services in connection with the collection of the revenue and to examine the collecting and accounting practices of departments when required to do so.

Among the new provisions of the bill it is proposed that there will be a specific but limited authority to write off certain uncollectable debts owing to the crown, which have been outstanding for a number of years. There is at the present time no parliamentary authority to write off such debts, and considerable expense is involved for departments in the maintenance of records of claims that are in fact worthless. The public accounts committee has from time to time considered the problem of dealing with these items, and in 1950 it suggested that consideration be given to the establishment of a procedure for writing off amounts which have been outstanding for ten years or more. The procedure proposed in the bill provides the means for dealing systematically with certain of these bad debts, and it is commended to the house for its consideration.
Another new provision relates to the authority of the government to implement guarantees which it has given under any act of parliament without requiring any further appropriation or parliamentary authority for the purpose. In the house last June the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) indicated that he believed this to be a matter of the utmost importance, and that there should be no doubt as to the authority of the government to implement the terms of any guarantee which parliament had authorized it to make.
It is proposed to include specific provision making it clear that the Minister of Finance may invest balances of public moneys not immediately required for use in securities of Canada, and to provide statutory directions as to the accounting treatment to be given profits and losses incidental to those investment operations.
The new bill will also establish a system for the control of public stores, similar in principle to that now followed under the Department of Transport Stores Act. By providing comprehensive legislation that may be applied to the stores of any department, improved accounting and budgeting procedures will be available which will assist the department in securing the benefits of centralized purchasing and warehousing practices, while yet preserving for parliament the control of appropriations.
An important feature of the new bill is that it will establish a comprehensive pattern for the financial relationships between the government and its crown corporations. It has not seemed desirable to deal with all these bodies on the same basis, for it is clear from an examination of the legislation under which existing corporations were established
Financial Administration that parliament has not granted to them all the same degree of independence and autonomy.
In the bill, as the minister explained last summer, three classes of crown corporations are distinguished. The first class consists of those corporations that are responsible for administrative, supervisory or regulatory services and are. subject to the more or less continuous day to day control and direction of government or of a minister. It is proposed that these departmental corporations, as they are called, will be dealt with as at present generally in the same manner as departments of government.
The second class consists of those crown corporations that manage lending or financial operations or produce or deal in goods and supply services to the public on a commercial basis. These proprietary corporations, as they are generally termed, are not normally dependent upon parliamentary appropriations for their operating expenses. They are generally expected to pay their own way, and in the acts under which they are incorporated they have usually been given a considerable degree of managerial freedom. It is proposed in the bill that they be left free to control their own operating budgets and contractual commitments, but it is provided that their capital budgets must be submitted for approval of the governor in council and laid before parliament.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have an example?


James Sinclair: Polymer.
In the third class are those corporations legally agents of the crown and which manage trading or service operations on a quasicommercial basis, or operate procurement, construction or disposal activities on behalf of the crown. The corporations in this group are frequently dependent directly or indirectly on appropriations from parliament to meet all or part of their operating deficits and for this reason it has seemed proper that they should be subject to a somewhat greater measure of financial control than proprietary corporations. Consequently in addition to requiring their capital budgets to be approved by the governor in council and laid before parliament, it is proposed that their operating budgets should be subject to ministerial approval, and that the conditions under which they may enter into contractual commitments should be prescribed by the governor in council.


Howard Charles Green: Would that be War Assets Corporation?


James Sinclair: Yes, and Canadian Commercial Corporation; groups like that.

Financial Administration
As the minister pointed out, it is proposed that, except for the provisions I have just noted, the crown corporations part of the bill should apply to both agency and proprietary corporations. We are seeking to establish a pattern and to lay the foundation for more uniform and systematic financial relationships between the government and parliament on the one hand and the several classes of crown corporations on the other. In general the legislation is intended to deal with those matters which the present acts do not cover, but in the event that there is any inconsistency between the provisions of this part and any other act, it is specifically provided that the latter prevails.
As I have indicated, it is proposed that the capital budgets of both agency and proprietary corporations, as approved by the governor in council, should be laid before parliament. Agency corporations will also be required to submit their operating budgets for ministerial approval and to undertake their contractual commitments in accordance with conditions prescribed by the governor in council. For both agency and proprietary corporations, provision will be made for meeting emergency working capital requirements, for regulating the establishment of reserves and banking accounts, and the treatment of surplus moneys. The bill will also include provision requiring corporations to keep proper books of account, and to make annual reports to the appropriate minister to be laid before parliament with the corporations' audited financial statements. The auditor will be required to report on the financial affairs of the corporation in terms specified in the bill-terms, I might say, which are somewhat more stringent than the present Companies Act requirements. As the minister pointed out last session it is also proposed to qualify the Auditor General to act as the auditor or a joint auditor of a crown corporation in any case in which he is not now eligible for appointment.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I have referred to most of the significant aspects of the bill. There are other proposed provisions relating to the transfer of crown property, placing the government officers guarantee fund on a statutory basis, the recovery of debts due to the crown, the authorization of remissions, civil liabilities and offences and certain other matters, but I would suggest that it is more fitting that these should be explained in detail in committee. A number of existing statutes will be repealed and these are listed in a schedule to the bill.
The bill will provide more efficient procedures for the regulation and control of the financial transactions of the government and


for the management of public stores and property. It will lay the foundation for a more satisfactory relationship between the government and parliament on the one hand, and corporations on the other. In so doing, it will enable parliament to receive a fuller accounting of the way in which public moneys have been received and spent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the resolution before the house is probably one of the most important that can come before any parliament, dealing as it does with the question of the efficient handling of public funds. Because, after all, it is almost a self-evident fact that nothing is of such importance to a nation, in the realm of everyday affairs at any rate, as what happens to the money a government takes from the people, how much it takes, and what it does with that money when it takes it under its control. Unfortunately, however, though one of the most important matters that can ever come before a parliament, this same subject matter is perhaps one of the driest and, unfortunately, the most complicated and technical. We always seem to get into dull and technical discussions when dealing with affairs of this kind.
I am sure the house will understand and agree when I say that in the light of those facts and the very general-and quite properly general-review given by the parliamentary assistant by way of introduction to the resolution, no comments in detail upon the contents of the proposed measure either should or could be made at this time. The detail can be left either until the resolution is in committee or the bill which is to follow is referred to the committee on banking and commerce. First let me say that the proposal to refer the measure to the banking and commerce committee-


James Sinclair: The public accounts committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am in entire agreement with that. As the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, many of the suggestions being incorporated into this measure have resulted from recommendations made by the public accounts committee as a result of studies it has made from time to time of the public accounts and the evidence it has had presented to it. However, I must say that it is going to be difficult for the public accounts committee at this session to give this measure the study which it deserves. As has already been suggested, this session could be known as the cost of living session, but it appears to me it is rapidly qualifying for the name of the committee session. The rapidity with

which committees are springing up is becoming somewhat bewildering, and the tendency of those committees to bog down is becoming equally discouraging.
We now have another important committee looming on the horizon to deal with this matter. It is not to be suggested that we are wishing to stall in any sense, but this is a most important matter affecting the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act and the legislation regulating the treasury and other matters concerning the public accounts. These matters are up for general revision at such infrequent intervals that it seems to me this committee must undertake its work in the determination not necessarily to delay but also not to allow any undue pressure to be put upon it to finish up its work in a hurry so that all considerations which should be gone into cannot be dealt with. Apart from the multiplicity of committees, this particular committee should not allow itself to be placed under pressure because this session is presumably going to wind up before Christmas, and thus give this task incomplete attention.
That having been said, I should like to turn for a moment to some general considerations which occur in discussing the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. As I have said, it is not desirable at this time to go into detail, but this resolution does give us an opportunity to say a word or two on the whole question of government expenditure and government economies. I am not going to rehearse all the controversy which has been raised in the past over whether the government is wasting our money. Charges have been made to that effect and in my view they are fully substantiated by the review of the estimates for the year and the tabling of the special tabulation of expenditures with this year's estimates.
I do feel that advantage should be taken of this opportunity to advocate a control by parliament through properly constituted agencies over government spending so that parliament itself can effect some economies. I think it will be agreed when we consider what has happened in the past few years that it is fairly obvious that parliament has not had an opportunity to bring about any savings in the expenditure of public funds. I am referring particularly to the procedure followed when we review the estimates. We know from experience that any suggestion we make that an item be reduced is regarded as a vote of want of confidence in the government. That was our experience when we moved a reduction in an item two years ago. The minister reacted immediately and said
Financial Administration that the reduction would be taken as a vote of want of confidence, and the suggestion was dealt with upon that basis.
It must be remembered that practically the only opportunity of parliament to directly control the spending of money is through our review of the estimates each year. If the suggestion of a reduction is to be treated as a vote of want of confidence then that opportunity becomes completely illusory. It seems extremely likely that in the course of things that approach to the question in committee of supply will continue. I do not think it is unfair for me to say that unless the government has a change of mind we will not be able to accomplish any savings by the review which we give to estimates in committee of supply. We can get explanations and we can perhaps expose extravagance, but I am referring to what I regard as one of the most important tasks of parliament, that is to bring about by its own control over the expenditure of money reductions in expenditures which will be reflected in the amount of money the government takes from the people through the taxes.
I feel it is important in considering the legislation to be based on this resolution to approach the matter from that point of view and to see whether this revision provides a method by which parliament can effectively curtail expenditures after a proper review and discussion of the proposed expenditures on their merits, rather than having such proposals treated as indicating a want of confidence in the government.
It seems to me that a method could be devised under which all parties in the house and all hon. members could study proposed expenditures in an impartial way, in the sense of its being non-partisan, and without every suggestion that a reduction be made being taken as a reflection upon the wisdom of the government. When almost every day brings situations which increase the likelihood of expenditures in order to meet them, surely every opportunity must be given of finding ways and means of reducing expenditures. We should have the opportunity of examining whether the burden placed upon the government to meet these crises is not so intolerable that our whole system might be in danger of breaking down. I think it is axiomatic that at the present time the most important task facing this government and all public legislative bodies is to find ways and means of reducing expenditures and effecting economies without at the same time either curtailing essential defence expenditures or introducing such a rigorous elimination of spending as in effect to bring about a break-down of the actual
1118	HOUSE OF
Financial Administration administrative machinery. If we can find a happy medium I think we will have solved one of the most pressing and urgent problems of our day, but one which I must confess it seems to me at the moment we are very far from solving.
With these general remarks, let me turn to some matters which come under more particular headings. One of the things which the parliamentary assistant has said this legislation is designed to do is to provide a more effective method of giving parliament a degree of supervision over public borrowing and the public debt. In that connection there is one remark I want to make at this time because I think it is something that should be said. I believe there is room for grave reproach of the government at the present time with respect to the way in which it has interfered, indirectly it must be confessed but nevertheless interfered, with the value of government bonds. It is reported in the press today that as a result of the policy of the Bank of Canada the value of government bonds has depreciated further to the extent of anything up to $1.30 on $100. I think that is one of the most dangerous things the government can do, because it seems to me the result can only be to destroy confidence in the obligations of the Dominion of Canada. If, in addition to the disturbance and uneasiness of mind of our people as a result of the present inflationary trend and the decrease in the purchasing power of our dollar, we have added any suggestion that as a matter of deliberate policy the value of securities with the backing of the Dominion of Canada is to be depreciated, I think the results will be disastrous.


James Sinclair: Because this matter is of great importance, would the hon. member give me the source of his assertion that it was action by the Bank of Canada which resulted in that drop in government bonds?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not the article with me.
I will get it later, but I think I can summarize it now. It is in today's press, and the same general assertions have been made in articles previously; that the Bank of Canada formerly supported the market for Dominion of Canada bonds by issuing quotations of the prices at which it would purchase bonds of various issues. I remember that a year and a half ago, certainly not more than two years ago, most of the Dominion of Canada bonds issued during the war were quoted on the market at well over their $100 face value. However, within the last two years the Bank of Canada has withdrawn that support from the bond market, and because of that withdrawal of support


the market quotations for bonds have been dropping until in many cases war loan bonds are now quoted at less than par.
The article which I saw today refers to a further quite substantial drop which has just taken place in recent days. It is because of the withdrawal of support of the bond market by the Bank of Canada that the drop in market quotations has taken place. Don't let the parliamentary assistant tell me that does not mean that the bonds will be redeemed at less than par. I know that as well as he does.


James Sinclair: You are anticipating me. All I am going to say is that in the same press account from New York there is a statement by the Bank of Canada saying that they had not taken any such action, that they were neither supporting nor withdrawing their support of the bonds. That is in the very same statement to which the hon. member referred, and I think I should point that out in all fairness since I did not expect to be called on in this regard. It is important that an answer should be made, and on Monday at three o'clock I will be glad to make a statement on this very important problem.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear that because I agree with the parliamentary assistant it is a matter of sufficient importance to call for a statement. I shall leave it at that for the moment. Certainly the understanding in the financial papers and the daily press is that it is the result of the action of the Bank of Canada in withdrawing support from the bond market. If the parliamentary assistant can clear up that matter, if in his statement he will say anything to indicate to the people of Canada that they need not have any concern that the bonds which they bought at $100 will become worth less than $100 as a result of government policy, then I for one will welcome that statement. I think it is a statement which should have been made some time ago. I hope it will not be confined to a statement merely that when the bonds come due for redemption they will be redeemed at par. That does not help the situation at all because these bonds are the same as currency today. When they were sold people were encouraged to buy them on the basis that their bonds would be freely negotiable, and up to the present time they have been.
Of what value to a person today is a bond which has a face value of $100 and will be redeemed at $100 in ten years' time, when perhaps the purchasing power of the dollar will have dropped still further, if today it will only fetch $95 on the market? That situation can only have the effect of

creating uneasiness as to the value of Dominion of Canada securities, and confidence will not be restored by the plain statement that at the end of their term they will be redeemed at par. The holder of a Dominion of Canada security today is not interested in what he will get for it in ten years' time. He wants to know whether it is worth 100 cents on the dollar today. I make these remarks because of the reference of the parliamentary assistant to supervision of public borrowing and the public debt.
Then I should like to repeat a suggestion I have made before, though I am not going to do so in detail, that there should be what amounts to, for want of a better word, a budget committee. I referred a moment ago to the problem which I believe above all others confronts all governments today, the problem of effecting economies. I have said before and I repeat, because I still believe it, that I am prepared to pay tribute to the work the treasury board does in trying to keep our expenditures down to a minimum. The treasury board is not always popular.


James Sinclair: Never popular.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I myself, when an estimate I have been anxious to see included is not there, am apt to curse the treasury board; but in spite of individual irritations I nevertheless feel we should occasionally give a word of commendation to the treasury board on the work that it does. I feel that in some respects its scope should be enlarged. I have said before, and I repeat, that I believe there should be a committee, whether it is simply the treasury board, an enlarged treasury board or a separate body, which can review the over-all financial situation of the government and the country at the beginning of every year about the time the estimates are being compiled. Then I believe it could consider these estimates, not only from the straight dollars and cents aspect, that is how much we could cut off across the board, but what general headings of expenditure should be given priority and where the large reductions should be made.
I am going to make a few suggestions as to how this committee might go about that. It may well be that these suggestions could be shot full of holes, but I merely give them to illustrate the type of approach I have in mind. I believe there is a great deal too much spent on government publicity and advertising. What I have in mind is that this committee might say, after looking at all the glossy reports of departmental and extradepartmental activities, the curricular and extracurricular work of the heads of these departments, "We think substantial savings could be made. We are, therefore, going to go
Financial Administration through every publicity item of every department and reduce the expenditure on publicity to a minimum of say $2 million". That might be the approach of such a committee. "However, with respect to defence, and with respect to projects under the departments of agriculture and public works which are themselves going to be productive of increased revenue and development of the country, we shall consider those in an entirely different frame of mind." I believe that if the committee were to go over the annual forecast of expenditures in that frame of mind we could reduce non-essentials to the bone without actually interfering with the essential expenditures or reducing them below the danger point.
While discussing this measure I shall venture to repeat a suggestion we have made in the past. I do this to some extent for the purpose of refuting claims that we are always indulging in generalities, and never putting forward any particular suggestions. I suggest that the competing efforts of government publicity bureaux, which I believe result to a large extent in the heavy expenditures under that heading, could be eliminated by setting up a consolidated bureau to deal with the necessary publicity for all departments in exactly the same way, and for the same reason, that there has been set up in the past *the printing bureau, the bureau for translations and such other centralized bureaux to deal with the common activities of government departments, instead of letting each one compete with, the other for that type of work.
Dealing with another general heading to which the parliamentary assistant referred, the question of crown corporations, I must say I welcomed the statement that the approach in this bill would be to bring crown corporations within the control of parliament. I believe that is an accurate summary of what the parliamentary assistant said. I do not mean to bring their actual running and administration within the control of parliament; that has never been the suggestion put forward by those of us who have occasionally objected strongly that crown corporations seem to be too remote. We recognize, as anyone must recognize today, the necessity for delegated authority, the necessity for power within a department to administer, free from a multiplicity of controls and checks which would produce inefficiency. What we have had in mind is not that the day to day administration of these corporations must be supervised by parliament, but simply that the over-all policies and the way in which the administration is carried on should be brought within the scope of parliamentary review and

Financial Administration presented to us at least once a year in a manner that we can understand. In that way we would be enabled not only to get a financial picture of the result of that operation, but to get a grasp of the policy which is being followed within the department and within the government with respect to the administration and general purposes for which the corporation was set up. If that is to be the result of the portion of the act dealing with crown corporations, then it will go a long way toward meeting the objections we have advanced from time to time.
I find there were other notes I had with respect to matters which might be discussed at this time, but I think they are matters of detail which can be left until later. I shall not take any more time today, except to close on the same note on which I began, that I believe this legislation is probably amongst the most important which can ever come before any parliament. If we can find in it, and in our review of it, any method by which we may be able to come to grips with this
problem of reducing government expenditures, then however long we may spend on this study the time will be well spent.
On motion of Mr. Knowles the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: On Monday we really hope to conclude the debate on the address and then proceed with Bill No. 18, an act to provide for the establishment of an agricultural products board, if the minister is here on that day. We would then take up third reading of Bills Nos. 21 and 22. Since Monday is a long day, perhaps I should mention Bill No. 19, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, and the debate on this resolution concerning the financial bill. We could add the act to approve the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at six o'clock.

Monday, November 19, 1951